If you ever see someone violating the rules, feel free to use the Report link which appears below every post to run it by the mods. We usually try to get to everything within 24 hours. Oh and no,... you don't actually have to report yourself first to use it.
Not even two days. He first posted Saturday at 6:38 pm. I responded Monday at 10:39 am. Three days would have been if I hadn't responded until Tuesday at 6:38 pm. Nice exaggeration there.
In truth it does. Diversity is only a strength when it is something that can be entered into willingly by those that will be involved. When it is something mandatory, where compliance is forced by legal repercussions and punishment for noncompliance, it does nothing but breed resentment and give rise to tribalism by those who are being given no choice but to associate with others. When diversity is made mandatory, based entirely on the belief that minorities are not being properly represented in a particular area, it is nothing more than a hindrance and weakness. It is nothing more than a crippling effect.
Nobody is forcing anybody to be diverse, people just have a difficult time living in a country with different kinds of people. Tribalism is a different thing.
Factually incorrect. Everyone in the united states is being forced to accept diversity, in terms of education, employment, and even entertainment.
Nobody is "forced" to accept diversity. People are people, and people are different. That's not factually incorrect. That's just life. You can accept it or not. That is what society is. In the same regard, nobody is "forced" to behave in a tribalist fashion. That is a LEARNED behavior, and it is a position which people like to pretend they are "forced" to take. Yet nobody forces anybody into it, they act it on their own. It comes from the selfish and arrogant assumption that one's culture or heritage is superior among others, and that they must be aggressive and hostile to defend their way of life.
Programs such as affirmative action and the like, however, are indeed forced acceptance of diversity, as such programs hold that the race of a particular individual are of greater importance than the qualifications and skills of a particular individual. Such is ultimately how things presently are in the united states, and no amount of disagreement to the contrary will change that it is a matter of fact. Then there is the fact businesses have diversity quotas they must fill, or be fined for the simple fact that too many employees, especially too many employees in any position of power and/or authority are regarded as being too white. No one present has been able to explain how diversity, specifically racial diversity rather than a diversity of applicable skill sets for a particular task, qualifies as being a strength that must be explored. No one has been able to explain how a business hiring more minority individuals to fill specific roles, is a good thing for anyone that simply must be done.
I see. So you are telling me that your life has been significantly imposed upon by "affirmative action." I'm sorry to hear that. In what ways? I'm totally a social justice warrior. So if you have experienced social injustice, I'm all ears.
Except for the fact that such has not been stated. All that has been stated is that no one present can explain how racial diversity qualifies as a strength, rather than skill set diversity. Nor can anyone explain precisely why a business hiring more minorities for any specific position qualifies as a good thing that simply must be done. But mandatory racial diversity has indeed hurt others in the united states, such as asian students who do not get into colleges because the schools wanted more black students, despite the asian students being better qualified to attend due to superior grade point averages. One specific example of mandatory racial diversity is the following case: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30scotus.html WASHINGTON — The Supreme Courtruled on Monday that white firefighters in New Haven were subjected to race discrimination when the city threw out a promotional examination on which they had done well and black firefighters poorly. “The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, adding that the possibility of a lawsuit from minority firefighters was not a lawful justification for the city’s action. “Fear of litigation alone,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.” If one is simply not sufficiently skilled to hold a particular position, then there race should not matter whatsoever. Race is not superior to skill, nor should it be regarded as such. Nor should one ever be led to believe that their race allows them to substitute for skill and qualification.
If there is another way to ensure that minorities are not discriminated against, please let us know. In the mean time, let's work to incorporate more common-sense into these kinds of laws so that they don't unfairly disadvantage people who are more qualified. Let's not forget the point. The point is NOT to give unfair advantage to minorities, but to ensure that they are not discriminated against simply because of their minority status. There are two possible ways to deal with this. Either get rid of anti-discrimination laws, or make them more fair. Getting rid of them altogether is not an option.
The first step would be to eliminate methods utilized for identifying the race of applicants for any particular position, both on forms and in interviews, so that the qualifications of an individual, and only the qualifications of an individual, are what is seen on those tasked with evaluating applications. The most common-sense approach to the problem is also the most simple. Those who demonstrate the best qualifications for a particular position are accepted. If minority individuals do not meet the qualification standards, then they simply do not get accepted to that particular position. It is hardly the most difficult concept imaginable. If one feels they are being discriminated against, perhaps they should work harder at getting their act together, or otherwise improving themselves so they can demonstrate the superior qualifications when compared to others.
This only addresses the issue that you have chosen to recognize, but not the issue which you have chosen to ignore.
And yet no one can explain how racial and/or sexual diversity, as opposed to diversity of work skill sets, is supposed to be a good thing that simply must be done.
It is being asked now. Those who speak of diversity had best be able to explain and elaborate upon their position if they wish to be taken seriously.
Okay...as commanded: diversity noun di·ver·si·ty | \ də-ˈvər-sə-tē , dī-\ plural diversities Definition of diversity 1 : the condition of having or being composed of differing elements : variety especially : the inclusion of different types of people (such as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization programs intended to promote diversity in schools 2 : an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities : an instance of being diverse a diversity of opinion In this case they likely mean a diversity of people and ideas, very much unlike their opposition.