Diversity

[FinalEnigma]

another member posted the following

Those progressives who espouse the virtues of Diversity while going "not in my back yard!" are not only hypocritical but downright dishonest since their aversion to vibrancy in their own vicinity reveals that they do know that Diversity is a net harm yet they go on espousing the goodness.

Bolding mine.

This section appears to claim that diversity, specifically diversity in population within a country, is a net harm.

Is ethnic diversity harmful? is cultural diversity harmful? are they beneficial? why or why not?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 18 by Haven]

Paprika blames 'Diversity', a term he uses that includes policies involving the mass importation of immigrants. How is this blaming immigrants? He even said attempts to mass import. He clearly has a problem with certain kinds of policies and those who want them - that's blaming locals, not immigrants.

How are bigots the majority? Bigot is derogatory, racist is derogatory, people who make suspected-racist statements in their own private lives have been fired or expected to resigned. Bigots and racists are a marginalised minority (if not a minority, they're certainly not represented, and they're somehow marginalising themselves).

Paprika's polemics do not capture the facts of this situation, but persuade via manipulation of base fears. Mass importing immigrants? Like we import oranges and cheap tech? Already the argument is so loaded it can only fall over dead and uncontested. He prevents discourse and the sharing of information by the use of distracting, heated words and phrases. It takes one to know one

As for your second paragraph, that is an interesting point. To be fair, people have NEVER been fired or sanctioned for expressing bigoted or discriminatory thoughts in private. Putting one's sentiments on Facebook or Tumblr is not expressing them privately. I could sit here and shout all the racist and homophobic sentiments I've ever heard and not lose my job or reputation (except with the parrot, he is decidedly liberal).

But the point you are making (as I see it) is that racism or bigotry are not openly expressed by a majority. I agree -- not anymore, unless one is safely anonymous.

Dark matter and energy, which make up 95% or so of the known universe, cannot be directly 'known', but it's effect on neighboring matter and the passing photon can be directly measured and known. That's a good analogy for sussing out the general presence of bigotry or racism. Folks may not, in a majority fashion, go about hurling racist epithets, but the racist attitudes impact and effect seemingly unrelated neighboring structures -- quite like in the issue of immigration.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 18 by Haven]

Paprika blames 'Diversity', a term he uses that includes policies involving the mass importation of immigrants. How is this blaming immigrants? He even said attempts to mass import. He clearly has a problem with certain kinds of policies and those who want them - that's blaming locals, not immigrants.

How are bigots the majority? Bigot is derogatory, racist is derogatory, people who make suspected-racist statements in their own private lives have been fired or expected to resigned. Bigots and racists are a marginalised minority (if not a minority, they're certainly not represented, and they're somehow marginalising themselves).

Paprika's polemics do not capture the facts of this situation, but persuade via manipulation of base fears. Mass importing immigrants? Like we import oranges and cheap tech? Already the argument is so loaded it can only fall over dead and uncontested. He prevents discourse and the sharing of information by the use of distracting, heated words and phrases. It takes one to know one

I wouldn't say that. He's certainly less guilty than others. Certainly not 'persuading via fears' (a phrase guilty of exactly what you just said, we all do it). For instance, isn't calling people racists and xenophobes "preventing discourse and the sharing of information by the use of distracting, heated words and phrases"?

'Importing' might be heated but it doesn't prevent discourse. Certainly it points out that his issue isn't personally with the immigrants, but people with what he sees as extremely pro-immigration stances and their relevant policies.

As for your second paragraph, that is an interesting point. To be fair, people have NEVER been fired or sanctioned for expressing bigoted or discriminatory thoughts in private. Putting one's sentiments on Facebook or Tumblr is not expressing them privately. I could sit here and shout all the racist and homophobic sentiments I've ever heard and not lose my job or reputation (except with the parrot, he is decidedly liberal).

Does being recorded in an illegally obtained sex tape count?

But anyway, I disagree. Facebook and twitter are private - or at least, they certainly aren't public in the same sense a public speaker is. Nor should anyone lose their job for what they say on their own account on facebook or twitter, or be prosecuted (privacy violations perhaps excluded). Your use of 'private' seems to literally mean 'where nobody else can hear you'.

But the point you are making (as I see it) is that racism or bigotry are not openly expressed by a majority. I agree -- not anymore, unless one is safely anonymous.

Dark matter and energy, which make up 95% or so of the known universe, cannot be directly 'known', but it's effect on neighboring matter and the passing photon can be directly measured and known. That's a good analogy for sussing out the general presence of bigotry or racism. Folks may not, in a majority fashion, go about hurling racist epithets, but the racist attitudes impact and effect seemingly unrelated neighboring structures -- quite like in the issue of immigration.

An unprovable claim that can't be disproven.

I'd rather listen to the views of open minded racists than others who are close-minded.

[FinalEnigma]

[Replying to post 18 by Haven]

Paprika blames 'Diversity', a term he uses that includes policies involving the mass importation of immigrants. How is this blaming immigrants? He even said attempts to mass import. He clearly has a problem with certain kinds of policies and those who want them - that's blaming locals, not immigrants.

How are bigots the majority? Bigot is derogatory, racist is derogatory, people who make suspected-racist statements in their own private lives have been fired or expected to resigned. Bigots and racists are a marginalised minority (if not a minority, they're certainly not represented, and they're somehow marginalising themselves).

Paprika's polemics do not capture the facts of this situation, but persuade via manipulation of base fears. Mass importing immigrants? Like we import oranges and cheap tech? Already the argument is so loaded it can only fall over dead and uncontested. He prevents discourse and the sharing of information by the use of distracting, heated words and phrases. It takes one to know one

I wouldn't say that. He's certainly less guilty than others. Certainly not 'persuading via fears' (a phrase guilty of exactly what you just said, we all do it). For instance, isn't calling people racists and xenophobes "preventing discourse and the sharing of information by the use of distracting, heated words and phrases"?

if I was calling other debators racists and xenophobes, sure. As it is, I was stating fact.

No, ethnic conflict is the result of the existence of multiple ethnicities, as well as differences between them.

This is absurd. if this statement were true, any time there were groups of multiple ethnicities, there would be ethnic conflict. This does not happen.

I don't know what definition of ethnic conflict you are using, but I was addressing Paprika, whose examples of ethnic conflict were basically hate crimes.

I'm not even sure how you can argue that ethnic conflict doesn't require racism or xenophobia. It's...ethnic conflict. Would you prefer if I used the term ethnocentrism?

Ethnic conflict is conflict based on ethnicity. I don't comprehend how someone could be at conflict with an entire ethnic group without either racism, or a hitherto unseen ethnicity which is incredibly and bizarrely belligerent. Can you explain?

Racism or xenophobia doesn't require ethnic conflict, especially if they exist in isolation.

Nobody ever alleged it did.

As for your second paragraph, that is an interesting point. To be fair, people have NEVER been fired or sanctioned for expressing bigoted or discriminatory thoughts in private. Putting one's sentiments on Facebook or Tumblr is not expressing them privately. I could sit here and shout all the racist and homophobic sentiments I've ever heard and not lose my job or reputation (except with the parrot, he is decidedly liberal).

Does being recorded in an illegally obtained sex tape count?

But anyway, I disagree. Facebook and twitter are private - or at least, they certainly aren't public in the same sense a public speaker is. Nor should anyone lose their job for what they say on their own account on facebook or twitter, or be prosecuted (privacy violations perhaps excluded). Your use of 'private' seems to literally mean 'where nobody else can hear you'.

I would argue that, given that facebook defaults to posts being 'public' and visible to anyone, then they are not private unless you explicitly set them so.

I'd rather listen to the views of open minded racists than others who are close-minded.

What is an open minded racist? How can somebody who automatically judges an entire race of people be considered open-minded?

[Jashwell]

if I was calling other debators racists and xenophobes, sure. As it is, I was stating fact.

I had someone else in mind.

No, ethnic conflict is the result of the existence of multiple ethnicities, as well as differences between them.

This is absurd. if this statement were true, any time there were groups of multiple ethnicities, there would be ethnic conflict. This does not happen.

I don't know what definition of ethnic conflict you are using, but I was addressing Paprika, whose examples of ethnic conflict were basically hate crimes.

I'm not even sure how you can argue that ethnic conflict doesn't require racism or xenophobia. It's...ethnic conflict. Would you prefer if I used the term ethnocentrism?

Ethnic conflict is conflict based on ethnicity. I don't comprehend how someone could be at conflict with an entire ethnic group without either racism, or a hitherto unseen ethnicity which is incredibly and bizarrely belligerent. Can you explain?

I mean conflict that could reasonably described as 'between ethnicities', not conflict exclusively on the basis of ethnicity. Perhaps a good analogy would be "international conflict is *(more or less) the result of the existence of multiple nations" - but not all international wars have been nationalist in nature.

Ethnic conflict is *almost* just the result of the existence of ethnic groups, you certainly need multiple ethnicities for ethnic conflict. You don't need racism or xenophobia for ethnic conflict, unless you're willing to define almost anything that disproportionately effects as racism or xenophobia. Racism and xenophobia will even arise from ethnic conflict.

If, for instance, someone thought the death penalty was an appropriate response to male circumcision, it might have a genocidal impact if carried out. At the very minimum, there'd be a high correlation between certain ethnicities and death penalty. Would this be ethnic conflict? I'd say so. Would such a policy be racist or xenophobic? Would anyone need to have been racist or xenophobic to introduce such a policy? I wouldn't say so.

Another example would be two nations of almost homogenous ethnicity going to war. In a hypothetical example, if you had two nations each comprised entirely of an individual race, and they went to war for any reason, that's almost certainly ethnic conflict, but I wouldn't call it racist or xenophobic.

Ethnicities had, for a long time, been localised - there are lots of strong correlations between traditions, cultures and national backgrounds, and ethnicities. Opposition to the former can lead to disproportionate opposition against the latter. People overestimating perceived differences leads to racism and xenophobia. Ethnic conflict can itself lead to racism and xenophobia - for instance, an 'unseen belligerent ethnicity'. No doubt some particularly extreme racists think some races are belligerent.

Does being recorded in an illegally obtained sex tape count?

But anyway, I disagree. Facebook and twitter are private - or at least, they certainly aren't public in the same sense a public speaker is. Nor should anyone lose their job for what they say on their own account on facebook or twitter, or be prosecuted (privacy violations perhaps excluded). Your use of 'private' seems to literally mean 'where nobody else can hear you'.

I would argue that, given that facebook defaults to posts being 'public' and visible to anyone, then they are not private unless you explicitly set them so.

I am not arguing about things being publically available (though things that aren't publically available, e.g. aforementioned sex tape, and set-to-private social media accounts, also suffer from this). I am arguing about things being public, as opposed to a person's private life.

There are very few reasons for which you can justify firing someone because what they said on social media was racist. If they worked for some kind of anti-racism initiative, for instance. (Or, of course, if they used your business's social media account to do it.) If you had an incident of racism with an unknown offender, it might be used as evidence.

I'd rather listen to the views of open minded racists than others who are close-minded.

What is an open minded racist? How can somebody who automatically judges an entire race of people be considered open-minded?

If they're willing to change their mind?
Racism includes making an assumption about someone based on what race someone is. It doesn't have to include "race x is inherently superior" let alone "members of race x are probably better". They can make neutral assumptions, and they can make charged, indirect assumptions. They can change their minds afterwards too, including if they had made a false positive assumption based on someone's race. People make assumptions (good and bad) all the time - some do it on race or ethnicity. If you're against racist assumptions (but not other assumptions) in principle, rather than in practice, you're closed minded.

Most racists are just guilty of bad induction.

-
This is assuming that the following have unreasonable definitions of racism: Some think disproportionate impact counts as racism (e.g. banning x affects one race more than another, it's racist), some think treating people equally in a non-collectivist fashion is racist (e.g. not having affirmative action is racist), and some think whether or not you're racist depends on the colour of your skin.

[jgh7]

How are you going to quantifiably come to a conclusion on this?

One person will state all the benefits of diversity.
Another will state all the negatives of diversity.

You will somehow come to a conclusion that one outweighs the other.

I think the best way to come to a conclusion is to perhaps imagine a perfect world where we all get along, and then decide if one place increasing its diversity would help it, harm it, or do neither.

This is actually rather complex.

If one place integrates more diversity into it, then I believe it actually loses its own uniqueness to an extent. It gains diversity, but at the cost that it is not as unique culturally anymore. Taking this to the final extreme, everyone in the world is so inter-diversified that we all end up becomming the same race with the same final culture.

Now let's take the opposite. Every one place keeps it's own culture and has no integration. We therefore are extremely diverse as a whole, but we as individual places are extremely not diverse. We have no other culture but our own place's culture. We are losing out on so many intersting ideas and ways of living from other cultures, and we are losing out on expanding our minds.

What is my final conclusion from both of these extremes? I would prefer something in the middle. Ha, that's my best answer, something in the middle. I want the best of both worlds.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 25 by jgh7]

'Diversity' means different things to different people (I know, a real profound observation but see the irony?). You ask how we could ever come to a conclusion on the issue of diversity. I think we can and will, but it will be several 'conclusions'. Then, whoever is the majority or in power politically will have their brand of conclusion in the top spot. Obama has taken the issue of diversity in directions typical for his moderately progressive politics.

Then you have the persuasive rhetoric for each approach to diversity, and being prone to rhetoric myself, I have to caution not to mistake the rhetoric for the real issues. If the rhetoric is persuasive to you (generic you), then go research that stance up one side and down the other, make sure it is well understood and then pay attention to how it is applied.

And always read the anti-rhetoric and information against the 'solution' you find yourself favoring. I avoid the extremes on both sides, but spend a lot of time reading conservative news links and articles. Every once in a while, I hear something I've never thought about before. Neither side will tell you the whole story, and anyway, it builds character to seriously consider the views and ideas of the 'opposition' .