Tucker Carlson: Diveristy Makes Us Weaker -- Is He Right??

The leftist Democrat vision of this ^ is just the opposite.

 

You are kidding, right? The idea that we used an archaic language as an example of diversity? Diversity did, in fact win the war for us. We were able to project force. Why? Because we diversified our armed forces, ie, a superior navy, a superior air force, and a superior army. Oh, and more resources doesn't hurt. Freaking out the Japanese because we used an inuit language doesn't even compare...

 

When I think of Diversity in WWII, what I really think of is a total mobilzation. We got our whole population involved, which helped us be able to drown everyone in production and manpower.

I can say, I'm ok with a change to the immigration system to priortize merit based immigration, so long as we still allow asylum. Our country was founded by people escaping oppression, I think it is an absolute disservice to ignore those who are trying to do the same.

As for people who refuse to assimilate? We've always had those. Generally, after two or three generations the US wins, in spite of their attempts.

 

That's not what he said.

Why don't you answer the question:

How does diversity make us stronger?

 

Diversity: the cause of every war since ever.

 

Diversity isn't necessarily a strength, but it is lefty dogma. He's got a point.

Where there is more diversity, there is more crime, and less interaction with neighbors.

We now see black-only graduation ceremonies.

Unity makes is stronger.

As in out of many-one.

 

Is Diversity Really Our Strength?.....


Last week Tucker Carlson did what Tucker Carlson does so well. He sparked an online firestorm (and yet another attempted sponsor boycott) by touching a third rail in American politics — this time aggressively questioning the phrase “diversity is our strength.” Here’s the key part of the segment. Note the millions of views:

Quite a few people interpreted Tucker as racist. I did not. I interpreted him as raising an important question, and then torching a straw man. His core point was summed up in just a few sentences:

"How precisely is diversity our strength? Can you think of other institutions, such as marriage or military units, in which the less people have in common, the more cohesive they are? Do you get along better with your neighbors and coworkers if you can’t understand each other, or share no common values? And if diversity is our strength, why is it okay for the rest of us to surrender our freedom of speech to just a handful of tech monopolies?"

But is Tucker really taking on today’s diversity ideology, as practiced? The institutions in American life that claim to value diversity most — higher education, progressive corporations, and the military (yes, the military) — aren’t Towers of Babel, where people can’t comprehend each other, much less share any common purpose. Instead, each one of these “diverse” institutions is remarkably uniform in its own way.

The diversity that’s the alleged “strength” of higher education all too often manifests itself as a community where people of every race, religion, and gender all think alike on the core political and cultural questions that matter most on campus. A community that allegedly celebrates diversity relentlessly enforces ideological uniformity.

But here’s the problem. When conservative Americans hear progressive Americans say, “diversity is our strength,” they filter those words through the prism of progressive communities, where “diversity” often either excludes conservatism or is barely tolerant of its existence.

Yes, there are rightists who reject diversity on purely racist grounds. But there are more people who instinctively recognize that diverse communities still require at least a degree of common purpose. Tucker does ask a key question: “How does a nation of 325 million people hang together?” And the answer isn’t that we hang together because we’re different. And our differences alone don’t make us stronger.

As Jonah Goldberg and others have explained so eloquently and urgently, in the absence of a transcendent, unifying American idea, tribalism reasserts itself. People seek common purpose and — once that purpose is found — can be remarkably welcoming of people from all walks of life who share that purpose. The ancillary diversity amplifies the strength of the unifying purpose.

The question of our time is whether Americans still share enough of that common purpose — and whether that common purpose is wide enough — to maintain the shared national bond. Or do we now have a red purpose and a blue purpose, and diversity is a “strength” only to the extent that it enhances our chosen tribe?

In other words, it would be easier to believe that diversity is our strength if the people who advance that idea weren’t also often among the most intolerant people in American public life.....snip~

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...sty-makes-us-weaker-is-he-right.541624/page-2


So now that is what Tucker Carlson is talking about.

 

Sorry but I don't see anything even slightly controversial by what Tucker said. Do you have specific complaints with his thesis?

 

Notice how no one wants to answer the actual question, they just want to get in your ear and go : RRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

I would suggest -UCKER should go live with the Brazilian jungle tribe that has been untouched by civilization.

 

Great argument! You sure showed Tucker right there with that bit of towering intellectualism.

 

You seem triggered.

 

Not when we're bringing in a million of them a year from countries that often hate western culture.

 

We won't be able to get immigrants from any country if Dirty Donald keeps dissing everyone except his Russian playmates.Who knows maybe that's his intent ,only Russian immigrants???

 

The US is the largest recipient of legal immigration worldwide and has been for decades.

Your confusion is based in not understanding the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.

 

Delusionalcrats...........it's what's for dinner. Sad.

 

If he has an issue with diversity then I hear the North Pole is a good place for him to go if he’s comfortable with things that are consistently white, dry and barren.

 

Having spent my youth surrounded by blonde hair and blue eyes, living now in a more diverse country(Black, Brown, Green eyes) is bliss and not dull(living in eastern Europe)

I believe America is fortunate because of its diversity

 

What about all of the blacks that were pushed out of south central LA?

 

That’s an immigration issue. Not a diversity issue.

 

It's not about the way people look, or they way they sound, or what they eat - it's about how they behave. If they refuse to assimilate (100%, including fluency in the local language as a bare minimum), they should not be given citizenship.

If you want specific groups which will benefit the West the most .. I would say any other Westerners, Asians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (Nigerians, etc). I would not allow ANYONE from the Middle East, North Africa, the "Stans", or South America into my Western nation, were I the boss of one.

 

Did you say that out loud?

 

They are interlinked.

Hispanics pushed blacks out of their historic neighborhoods, where they had been since working in the south bay ship and aircraft factories since ww2...


By the end of the 1980s, South Los Angeles had an increasing number of Hispanics and Latinos, mostly in the northeastern section of the region.[18]

"Between 1970 and 1990 the South LA area went from 80% black and 9% Latino to 50.3% black and 44% Latino."[19] This massive and rapid residential demographic change occurred as resources in the area were shrinking due to global economic restructuring described above and due to the federal government's decrease in funding of urban anti-poverty and jobs programs, and other vital social services like healthcare. The socio-economic context described here increased the perception and the reality of competition amongst Asians, blacks, and Latinos in South LA. The results from the 2000 census which show continuing demographic change coupled with recent economic trends indicating a deterioration of conditions in South LA suggest that such competition will not soon ease."[7]

In the 2010 census, the area of South Los Angeles had a population of about 768,456. 64.0% of the residents were Hispanic or Latino, nearly 31.4% were African American.[20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Los_Angeles#Demographics



https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/08/us/blacks-say-life-in-los-angeles-is-losing-allure.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/us/in-south-los-angeles-a-changed-complexion-since-the-riots.html

 

I didn’t stutter.

 

That means blacks are looking for better neighborhoods I assume?