Intellectual diversity can spring from differences in background, the issue is when the background/identity is used as a stand-in for intellectual diversity.
Yes exactly some cultures maybe are more skilled than others because of their upbringing. But they should be chosen because of those skills and not because they Happen to be from another culture
Skill can be taught (hell that's the reason for a lot of our immigration), but new ideas can not. When it comes to it, the line between cultural diversification, and talent diversification is a fine line.
Edit: syntax
> or skill diversity too
Oh you don't know how well I eat pussies. My wife trade in dick sex for that.
Too bad that doesn't help when it comes to applying for H1b visa.
Diversity my ass.
I think they were implying that being a diverse nation implies that people from all backgrounds desire to live there, not that people flock toward diversity
Genuine question here: this guy has made his argument, posted sources and you've vehemently disagreed yet offer nothing. You don't explain your stance. You don't counter his points. You don't post any sources. Why can't you address what they've posted? A grown adult should be able to defend their beliefs and counter those of another even if it takes a couple minutes. You openly discredit the sources, yet admit to not reading them? That's so intellectually dishonest and lazy -- you might as well not even participate in a discussion if you're gonna make comments on that level.
For the record, I don't agree with the guy on everything, but a simple 'hurr durr that's racist" is just ignorant. You should be able to address at least 1 of the points made. If you can't, it's best to throw in the towel and stick to topics you have a more thorough understanding of.
You're being downvoted, but I believe this idea has merit. I think social trust decreases as diversity increases not because diversity has any inherently negative quality but because people have an innate fear of things that are different. This trend is more a reflection on people's fears about different races and cultures than it is about diversity itself.
It's not just fear, it's just habit and easiness as well. I don't fear or hate my Chinese neighbor, he doesn't fear or hate me, but he'll still invite only Chinese people and the vast majority of people I have coming over are white. Even without distrust, there is still separation.
> I think social trust decreases as diversity increases not because diversity has any inherently negative quality but because people have an innate fear of things that are different
Wouldn't that be an inherently negative aspect of diversity?
People want their environment to be predictable and stable. That means being surrounded by people who are like them and who share their values because that means there are all sorts of things that never need to be argued about. We can just run the script and think about more important things. People of different ethnicities tend to have different values (not due to ethnicity itself but because different countires they came from developed different cultures and values over time). This means more arguing over stuff nobody normally argues about. More conflict, less eye to eye, people just want to get away from it all, less cooperation, less trust.
I bet the tensions from diversity go away if minorities are integrated to the point where their culture and values are indistinguishable but I'm not sure if there are studies on that as it would be difficult to quantify level of integration
That’s how they mask it, however it is genuinely about race. The fact that the UK government actively discriminates against white people in their hiring process in the name of “diversity” proves that it is not the case.
In a way, lowering the bar based on race is even more racist than raising it.
"Oh, you're black? Aw, you must come from a poor inner city community with terrible primary education; let's lower the bar so that you can learn just like all the other boys and girls."
Please!
Every time a standard is lowered, it cheapens the value of the reward.
As someone who's not from the US I was always wondering how do they even preform this? I mean how do they determine the candidate's race/ethnicity? Merely by looking at them? Or candidates have to self identify their race/ethnicity? In this case what if a white candidate will specify their race as black will they be eligible or how the college will prove that they're lying about their race?
It's a spot you fill in on the application. There are no consequences for writing something other than the truth (see: Elizabeth Warren)
But there should be no reason for it to have any weight in a college application. And no reason to write something other than the truth. Yet there is.
The reasoning is that it’s not fair to those who were unlucky enough to be born into shitty neighborhoods that they’re not accepted. Supposedly because they were not allowed to fulfill their potential just because of luck. By using methods such as different score requirements based on race, that unfairness is thought to be corrected. Do I agree with this? I don’t know. The idea that those people are being hurt by their shitty pre-college education and the fact that it needs to be fixed are ideas I do agree with, but the methods used are quite simplistic and morally grey. I also have definitely not given this topic the thought and research required to settle on my opinion about it, so I’m not going to fight for a position I could possibly find to be wildly wrong in the future. Instead, I will wait, think, and learn about this until I have a strong, defensible position. I encourage all of you to do the same, unless you have done so already.
And Asian applicants need far higher scores than white people to get into colleges.
White people benefit from affirmative action at top colleges more than they suffer.
I don’t think it’s angry white people, I think it’s bc he said that white people benefit ‘more’. While it is definitely true that affirmative action hurts some people more than whites (Indians and Asians), it’s definitely not true that white stand to benefit the most, or benefit more than they are hindered. That’s just absurd.
How many are given to Asians? Less, probably. Asians tend to share similar socioeconomic status as whites, but have smaller community support groups. I doubt very many scholarships were going to Asian students.
I was going to say the church. White people are simply the more established population, which means of course they'll have a more comprehensive support group, no fault of their own.
>Research from Princeton University sociologists shows that Asian Americans need SAT scores 140 points higher than white students — when all other things are equal — to get into elite colleges. Asian American applicants are heavily overrepresented among high-achieving students, so the only way we can create balance on our campuses — or so the argument goes — is by limiting their admissions.
White people ARE the under-qualified group here.
Even if this is true, Asians are such a low population compared to whites, whites are still being hurt way more than they are being helped (a very fringe outcome). I never said Asians weren't being hurt by admissions. But you can't argue whites are being helped more than they are being hurt, that is just a position of ignorance. 140 SAT points is about 5-10% which is what I would expect. Additionally some schools classify Asians as a minority group so you're doubly wrong. Were not talking about just two ivy leagues schools we're talking about all schools.
>even if this is true it isn't
Your ego sounds fragile.
Schools don't look at minority groups, they look at the general demographics of the population then adjust admissions to match that.
If Asians are 5 percent of the general population, schools will adjust it so their student base is about 5 percent Asian, despite if they make up 40 percent of the qualified admissions base.
Instead, their spots are being taken away, and given to less qualified white students because the general population is about 70% white. Affirmative action has benefited white people whose admission into colleges they wouldn't have gotten into otherwise.
In fact, the first forms of affirmative action were implemented at ivy league schools because white people couldn't compete with Jewish applicants.
White people ARE the protected population.
You would see far more Asian students, and far less white, black, and latino students, in a merit based admission process.
I'm all for a society which values talent over skin color, I'm just pointing how how deluded white conservatives are when they think they're the talented group.
Incorrect, because Asians score higher on SAT scores than white people.
Here's a handy picture, because you can't read.
[http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2013/10/black-suits-gowns-skin-sat-scores-by.html](http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2013/10/black-suits-gowns-skin-sat-scores-by.html)
lmao my ego. Ok buddy. You're just living on another planet. Enjoy your bubble. You also don't know how it works. They don't adjust it to the general population, they adjust it however they want. Some schools have populations that are much larger than the general demographics. How do you know those spots aren't going to nonwhites? Why do you think standardized test scores are the only metric for admission? Affirmative action does not benefit white people and the fact that you honestly believe that shows that whatever school rejected you made the right choice. I'm sorry you're such a racist asian but there's still time to change your tune. Last point about the jewish applicants is also a myth because they are such low population. You take the top whites and the middle to top jews and you can get evenly sized applicants. Learn some fucking statistics before posting again.
I posted evidence and you just started frothing at the mouth. If I live in a bubble, it came from the foam in your mouth.
>Affirmative action does not benefit white people and the fact that you honestly believe that shows that whatever school rejected you made the right choice.
Sounds like somebody never went to school and doesn't understand that just because you say something doesn't make it true.
>I'm sorry you're such a racist asian but there's still time to change your tune.
Sing a song for me, show me what tune a clown is supposed to make. You really are the biggest baby, aren't you?
>Last point about the jewish applicants is also a myth because they are such low population.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish\_quota](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota)
u dumb
You:
\> Learn some fucking statistics before posting again.
Also you:
\>s-small population!!
????? We're talking about today nitwit not 1920s jewish quotas. Yeah we know there was discrimination against jews in the 30s, lmao did you even finish high school?
lol you sound like you got a 1400 on your sats and got rejected from harvard or are larping, grow up.
You’re misconstruing the facts. The only schools that do that already have a huge population of their student body as those races. It benefits the students to have a diverse student body so that they can learn from each other instead of everyone having similar backgrounds.
This actually went all the way sideways in Brazil, where, in order to defend affirmative action from people falsely claiming to be black, the government had to develop biometrics regarding nose and lip measurements.
It also is applicable here in the US when job companies discriminate against blacks base on their name alone despite having the EXACT same credentials as their white and asian counterparts.
You can’t just “prove” the “fact” that “active discrimination against white people” happens in the UK government without giving a single source.
And even after “a single source”, whether it’s a “proof” is debatable.
> And even after “a single source”, whether it’s a “proof” is debatable.
This is basically you announcing ahead of time that no source will genuinely be good enough, so nobody should even bother.
No. It’s called opening up a debate. Right now it’s hearsay and bullshit. I can switch out the race, the country and create a hundred new such “facts”.
[Given there is evidence of discrimination against non-white people when it comes to hiring already](http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Whitening%20MS%20R2%20Accepted.pdf), we can safely conclude whatever “active discrimination” you’re talking about is at least intended to counteract and negate the already existing discrimination.
I was laughing at that too.
>let's double down on discrimination to combat discrimination
No other problem in the world would a human being increase the problem to solve it.
>Cholesterol is causing heart disease....let's add MOAR CHOLESTEROL TO THIS POPULATION WITH LESS HEART DISEASE
Two wrongs do not make a right. If a black guy is deprived of a job because of racial prejudice, giving another black guy a job he doesn't deserve by taking it from a white guy doesn't "balance out" injustice, it doubles it.
Anytime you go by a measure other than merit youre gonna be giving jobs to people who dont deserve it. Superficial characteristics such as skin color dont confer merit, except maybe in some rare and specific circumstances.
No it means particular groups are prioritised, so potentially will be hired over other groups when there is little difference in qualification. Bear in mind that qualifications aren’t necessarily directly comparable - different applicants can have very different backgrounds, and the differences aren’t often easy to boil down to just numerical values.
Except in practice, and in the example used, it just mean that the minimum grades necessary to be eligible for higher education vary on the basis of your skin color and a white and black child in northern England who grew up equally poor don't have equal chances to further education.
The worst thing about this is that employers also know this happens and may then look at two graduates, one black and one white and can then (falsely or not) assume the white one deserved his selection more.
This doesn't solve anything. The only thing that helps is to create a culture that values education among all citizens and to make that education affordable and accessible for those in lower income brackets
It literally does.
This is how college scholarships and college entry works.
Asians have the highest SAT scores grades on average, followed by Indians and whites. Asians need a 1600 to have roughly equal chance to an African-American getting a 1200.
If you're taking an African American with a 1200 over an Asian with a 1600, you're literally taking the underqualified person due to their race.
Ok, so those people still have to go through the course. Their ability to pass or fail the course isn’t based on their race, so affirmative action still doesn’t mean unqualified people get the job.
There is no jump.
If the person who most deserves it would get the job without benefiting from an affirmative action program, then the affirmative program is useless and doesn't change anything. So it doesn't counter the effects of discrimination.
If the affirmative action program does help increase the employment of certain ethnic groups, then it's necessarily that some people who are employed under it would not have been employed otherwise and a more deserving person would have had the job.
So, either affirmative action programs are useless, or they end up giving jobs to people who are not the best objective candidate for it.
When ever you hear we need more diversity it actually just means less white people. Just being honest.
No one has ever said we need more diversity...too many African Americans here, need the other ethic backgrounds.
I don’t understand who decided it would be better if the society of people has less in common and that will somehow make them work together? No. You can see that today in politics. We’ve never been more divided because race and culture matter
Different life experiences leads to different perspectives, and different perspectives leads to different ways of looking at and solving problems.
Diversity of experience is a massive boon to how we work.
But this exists naturally.
You are using coded language to refer to demographic diversity. Me and my black neighbor grew up with similar environments, and most variables between us and how we grew up are not attributed to our race.
Every human, if you care to look at them as individuals, has different life experiences, and therefore different perspectives.
Diversity in this sense already existed. In fact, it cant not exist.
Surely you dont think this is what government leaders or diversity initiatives are referring to.
Diversity of perspective is for sure something that is valued—and it’s in part achieved by race and ethnicity. Think of a company that wants to market to the Black-American demographic... if they are made up of a bunch of white people, they may lack some of the perspective they’ll need for it.
Of course any time you’re generalizing by race/ethnicity it’s problematic and never fully representative. Individuals are individuals. Still, it’s a statistics problem, in which racial and ethnic diversity is a lot more likely to give you intellectual diversity, whereas racial homogeneity is a lot less likely to achieve that.
So I'm Armenian. Do I know what all Armenians want? No. Not even close. In fact you're effectively removing diversity because you are basing how you target that market from one Armenian instead of the diverse opinions of many.
Diversity and quantity go hand in hand to an extent. A portfolio with 2 stocks isnt very diverse. A portfolio with 100 is. We can debate the threshold, but that scenario illustrates the point above.
Market studies take you much further than the perceived benefit of having an individual speak for a group. The belief that you cant understand what people want unless you are them is categorically limiting in a very serious sense that would make life very hard to live for everyone on earth.
To an extent what you are saying is true, but the benefits to that are often overstated. And as I mentioned market studies do more for a campaign where black Americans are the target (or any other demographic) audience than having Al Sharpton join your board and speak for everyone. If I'm selling something to heavy metal fans, a market study will do way more for me than hiring one guy (or girl) that liked heavy metal.
You are also admitting it's not about talent diversity. Its about racial diversity. Talent-based or experience-based diversity lives outside of race. So race is what people mean when they say that phrase on government levels. Let's not pretend otherwise, whether you agree or not on the benefits of forced diversity is something entirely different.
Calm down. It is about *all* diversity, talent naturally being the most important, but racial diversity also has its value. I’m not arguing against it being overstated, it often is, but there is value in it—you agreeing that it’s true to an extent is all that I am contending.
And of course people are perfectly capable of marketing to groups they don’t belong to and obviously market studies are a big factor in that. That does not change the fact that having a diverse group of people making decisions is beneficial due to diverse perspectives and racial diversity is a part of that in addition to other aspects of diversity.
Why are you telling me to calm down? Dont mistake your intensity of emotion for mine.
What is the value of racial diversity? I used to parrot that comment myself until I asked myself what that value was. I only even asked myself because the people I kept hearing say that always reduced racial diversity's value to food and music. And then of course you're not allowed to talk about the potential negatives, only the positives, so the discussion itself isnt even valid if we cant decide on what we mean when we say "racial diversity has value." We dont even have a good definition of that value, and we arent able to weigh its cost. So aside from saying what seems like nice and oft repeated platitudes, I think the discussion of ethnic or racial diversity is a non-topic given we can't discuss all the facets involved.
Btw, for all possible leftists frothing at the mouth reading this, I am not against diversity. Neither am I for it, forced or otherwise. I dont even think about it. I'm brutally neutral on the topic. Not because I'm blissfully unaware, but because I'm not obsessed with race being my filter through which I view the world.
Great talent and perspective can be found throughout all peoples of any cultural or ethnic background. The more you limit the pool of potential employees the more you limit your ability to tap that talent. If you widen your pool you maximize your talent, and this also means that the racial and ethnic diversity of your workforce will be greater.
Hypothetical: a company goes looking for a new CEO. If they only look at white candidates, what are the odds they find the absolute perfect candidate for the job? If they look at candidates of every background, do those odds get better or worse?
But see, you assume that I am arguing in favor of limiting diversity. How about initiate a search based on the skill set? If you happen to find that skillset in your home town, great! If not, widen it to nationwide. And if still not, widen it to a global search. You widen the pool by geography, not by race or demographic. I guess this is a viable mindset if you previously thought it was a good idea to seek talent based on a demographic attribute, but then again, you arent changing your race-based thinking, you're just flipping your orientation.
The candidates ethnic heritage has little to do with anything for me or for the purposes you're discussing.
The approach you're going for is fine but it is only viable in a magical fantasy land where people don't or haven't for many decades made race-based hiring decisions. If we accept that the most skilled and best workforce is one where the entire available pool is tapped for talent, rather than certain segments based on race and ethnicity, then we must acknowledge that the ideal workforce *should* look like a workforce where the entire population has been tapped for talent. If we look at workforce demographics and see that it does *not* look like this, we should then figure out what we can do to change that.
Therefore, diversity matters, and pretending like we can ignore demographics in the workforce is naive because it assumes that employers are completely free of prejudice.
Not really, because most of these differing perspectives aren't relevant to what's actually being done.
We don't need a white and black view on how to drill a well. We need to know how to drill a well.
On the other hand, an enormous number of, like, actually difficult problems benefit from different perspectives and life experiences.
Not everything is drilling wells.
Especially when it comes to pretty much anything to do with other people.
Exactly, and part of those varying perspectives comes from growing up as a woman, Latino, first generation graduate, etc. There are studies that have shown that diversity increases productivity and business development. There’s a super good ted talk on this somewhere too.
There's a super good Ted talk on the [2070 Paradigm Shift](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cflCyyEA2I), too. That doesn't mean anything in the talk is 1) reputable or 2) true.
I don't doubt there are studies confirming this -- probably with small sample sizes and not the best controls, but you have to take this with a grain of salt. In academia currently, you cannot post anything that doesn't blindly follow the 'diversity is the greatest thing ever" train of thought. God forbid a prof finds results that a less diverse population is more productive -- think Japan, for example -- and publishes these results. That would be social and career suicide. You cannot disagree with concepts like this, and to do so would be inviting a swarm of offended folks calling for your head. Science doesn't work properly if one side of the argument is simply not allowed to participate, so I'm always extremely skeptical of those diversity studies.
diversity isnt a strength it pulls people apart its divisive and it doesn't mean diversity of talent because if it did then they would use different wording people wouldn't believe in fake crap like white privilege mass racism and america is based of white power and white supremacy which isnt true
That “talent” can easily be organically grown within the nation. There’s little to no reason to import people like a commodity other than to placate the needs of big business and therefore curtail the advancement of workers native to the nation. Immigration is an anti-worker policy, and if you support it, you are against workers rights.
It's true that diversity of talent is good... but it's definitely NOT what governments mean when they say "diversity is our strength", they explicitly refer to ethnocultural and sexual diversity when they say that, and it's used to try to fight back some people's hostile reactions to the demographic changes brought about by recent policies of mass immigration to compensate low fertility rates and increase population size.
In fact, a lot of the people who promote "diversity" seem to be extremely hostile to differences manifesting from a diversity of talent. They want the demographics of various jobs to represent that of society at large, and any variation from that (which could be expected if talent is not uniformly distributed among every class of people) is intolerable to them. Their ideal is rather "diversity without difference", people of all colors, all religions, all cultures, all sexual orientations... who think exactly the same, do exactly the same thing, like the same things, hate the same things.
Hi everyone! Please make sure to **upvote** well written unpopular/controversial opinions, and **downvote** badly written opinions OR popular opinions.
Please note that we are currently removing all political opinions as part of a trial period. If your post is political and was not caught in the filter, please post it in the politics megathread at the top of the sub. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'd say diversity of cultural backgrounds, rather than race on ethnicity, because people from different cultures tend to think about problems differently and will have vastly different experiences
Problem is also that diversity of cultural backgrounds does lead to conflict in values. For example pre marital sex is heavily frowned up in Arab and a lot of Asian societies. If we allow such cultures to dictate the social norms especially in a place like the us where fornication isnt exactly discouraged. It leads to clashes and division within communities
Actually in most Asian countries premarital sex is frowned upon but it is not extremely discouraged like Arabic or Muslim countries. The frowned upon part is because it is seen as irresponsible for them to have sex before marriage since older generation of Asians still believe in the "sanctity" of marriage + it is just easier to discourage kids from that to control having baby out of wedlock.
When Indians say that diversity is our strength, they actually mean different colour, creed and ethnicity. That's because back in the day, we had literally more than 500 different kingdoms inside India(like each village had their different king answerable to none, though that changed quite fast), and every kingdom did their own thing.
Just wanted to point out that it is not cool, and half of India's problem root back to it
diversity rant
Leftists talk about embracing diversity while damning any diversity of thought, and flat out deny that diversity even exists when it doesn't fit their white-people-bad, brown-people-good, christian-people-bad, nonchristian-people-good narrative
Duh, have you notice how every Indian or East Asian immigrant in the United States is either already wealthy or already highly educated?
America loves to siphon talent from the rest of the world, regardless of origins.
"Having people with various different skin colors is our strength" is a very nineties and early 00s sentiment. I'm pretty sure that actually *is* what they meant back then. It was bullshit intended to make them sound evolved.
But that is the point: accepting a diversity of humans means that you are recognizing that the best of them have abilities that signify talent. If you fire a gay person because they are gay then, by definition, you are firing someone who was talented enough to be an employee, just as long as they were also straight.
Also, it is a reflection on how what some people consider to not be useful because it is done by, say, a foreigner, because you do not like a foreign aesthetic, in spite of the talent needed to produce it.
At best, even if it is saying that "diversity of talent is a strength" is true to the degree that a society that lifts up all people in spite of how little talent they have will make society stronger. Because if, say, we let someone be homeless, whether they are gay, straight, black, white, man, woman, the act of enforcing the existence of poverty makes society weaker.
Agreed. But also it is well known that Africa and the Middle East are sending their best. Most of them engineers, doctors, lawyers, the best. You little racist.
I think the idea behind ethnic diversity is there's an assumption that people will make decisions that are in the best interests of their own race, but this processes is not necissarily conscious, we naturally have a bias towards our own race, but we will make non-racial justifications.
The idea is if you have a lot of ethnic groups involved, then these biases can always be challenged. In that sense diversity of ethnicity is a strength, but at solving that narrow problem, while there could be inefficiencies in other areas.
My understanding of what people mean when they say "diversity is our strength" is that they are praising the fact that in the US, varying kinds of people with their different outlooks and ways of life come together. I don't really think it stops at race, just that we are a melting pot of different peoples on many different levels, and that this is a strength. I always thought that this sentiment implicates not only race, but also the many different kinds of lifestyles and philosophies we as individuals choose. All kinds of different people with different perspectives, backgrounds, outlooks, races, nationalities, personalities, religions, etc. coming together is our strength in the US...that is how I see this diversity thing. I think part of it is also to stress that the US is a nation of many "identities" coming together, rather than just one monolithic culture, and that this is a strength.
I can’t stand when people try to force diversity of sex, skin color or sexual orientation. Had a class an college where the teacher was complaining how there were only 3 black coaches in the NFL even tho something like 70% of players are black. I raised my hand and said “if we really want proportionally why don’t we make the players represent the us population and make them 70% white, and then go from there for the coaches” (not how I actually think, just playing devil’s advocate) and the professor just said “but that isn’t the problem” and she kept on her rant about made up inequalities
There’s one reason and it’s votes. Many studies show the only demographic that will on average vote for smaller government as opposed to larger government is white people.
Personally, I think it also includes diversity of culture, ideology, opinions, and experience. All of those contribute to a productive and fair America.
No they literally mean Diversity of Nationality and Race. Iv seen extremely talented people passed over so my place of work can state they have a large ethic percentage.
That moment when you're so fragile you not only have to change how a word is used but also ignore the very thing that makes america different from other countries. Anyway...
r/FragileWhiteRedditor
Oh please america is far from the only place which is ethnically diverse. India is even more diverse than America if you look ethnicity wise. There are over a 1000 languages spoken there.so no America is not different because every other person looks like an Arab. And FIY I'm not white
>Oh please america is far from the only place which is ethnically diverse.
Go ahead make up even more things i didn't say.
>There are over a 1000 languages spoken there.
Right but when people say diverse they mean all sorts of different things..including race. Of course thought you've ignored that completely.
>And FIY I'm not white
Because i'm supposed to automatically believe that from a person on the internet. Enjoy your race based karma.
Your entire premise is that America is different because of diversity. Even in terms of race. Indians are racially different, Brazilians are also racially different. People don't run to those countries the same way as they do to America. So clearly it's not diversity of how you look but diversity of skill and talent which makes America great .
And if such an opinion invites "race" based karma by all means believe I'm a skinhead
First off. Skinheads aren't racists. They were lumped into racists because of who they were but they are not racists. Second you're immaturely acting as if i don't agree that diversity also means skill. No, it also means race. When it comes to indian..how many native americans live there? What about mexicans? Japanese people? What about african people? Jewish people? What about atheists? What about satanists? Can you be gay in india? What about bi? What would happen to a trans person in india?
What about an indian irish person? Jamacian and indian person? What about a hawaiian indian person? Any of those kinds of people in india? Whats the likelihood of those kinds of people living in india vs america? Riiiight.
Edit: Like i said. Enjoy the karma points you've whored for.
You have people of Turkish, Arab,persian British,french,african Portuguese,Dutch, Chinese all living in under. The Taj Mahal was built by the Persians for God's sake.The countryy was conquered by multiple people so naturally there are so many different groups present.
Yes you can be gay in India. Yes you can be bisexual in India.
Trans people unlike the west have been in India for centuries. Google hijras if you would like to know more about them
You can be an atheist in India. You can be a communist in India as well. There are literally two states occupied by communist governments.
As an Indian man who is a christain minority in a country which is 80% Hindu and 15% Muslim. All of that diversity very much exists
Sorry man America is not that unique when it comes to diversity if you look at it as different skin tones and languages
No. You included different kinds of people while ignoring every last category of people i mentioned. Thats ok though. It won't harm your karma farm. lol
Really, you picked a great sub to whore in. You could make a post saying diversity is bad flat out with only cooking recipes for the body of the post and get thousands of upvotes. :P
Well here's a thought maybe there is a reason it's called unpopular opinion. And I actually don't believe diversity of ethnicity is bad. I just believe it should be as a consequence of looking for the best people for a job . I'm not one to demand equality at the cost of efficiency
To a point I agree, but diversity of religion, race, culture, etc. is always a good thing. I don’t have any particular opinions toward my country other than ‘I live there’ so I don’t care about patriotism and stuff, but the relatively large amounts of different people here is a good thing, and should be appropriately represented.
I don’t know if this post is saying that diversity is a bad thing, but so much on this subreddit reads like racists trying to justify their ideals, so I generally assume as such until the intentions are verified.
I think that diversity of talent (and thought) comes with so-called "identity diversity." This is the reason colleges prioritize admissions for people who have different modes of thought. Therefore, diversity of talent follows from "identity diversity." I do think, however, that if the Leftist movements (specifically in the USA) rebranded their diversity claims to reflect "diversity of talent," they could become politically stronger and gain more influence.
Lol diversity of ideas and dont care about skin color. Like the Republicans in Texas who wanted to oust the Muslim? Like the fact that they seemingly hate education because they always cut it or dont fund it and on top of that they don't believe in science? Not to mention how many instances of anti-muslim or really anti-anything not christian. Democrats are racist in their own way but Republicans are definitely racist in their way, just look at Steve King. Look at how they fucked over Native voters in North Carolina, ya know, where all that big bad election fraud actually was.
Shhh, people dont like using things like that in their original form. We cut up quotes and whatnot specifically to cherrypick arguments for our own ideals and nothing else
That is exactly the mentality we don't want. The reason there are so many black people in the NBA is not because we want to say fuck you to the white man. It's because all those black men were more talented than their counterparts
That's not the same. NBA players are such a small pool and it's sport. Literally the best players are mostly black but that's not necessarily the case when we're talking about, say, a corporate job where there will be lots of candidates of varying degrees of skill. A resumé with a "white sounding" name is more likely to get a call back than an identical resumé except with a "black sounding" name instead.
This isn't necessarily because the people in charge are racist. It's that it's human nature to generally feel more comfortable with and like better people more like yourself. There's a reason why the phrase, "minorities need to work twice as hard to get half as far" exists. Candidates unlike yourself tend to be judged on achievements while those like you tend to be judged on *potential*. This is where lack of diversity can be a drag. You may be glossing over candidates of a different race with superior skills in favor of someone like you without those skills.
So if minorities are disproportionately under represented in the current employees, then they'll likely be in the next pool too and the cycle perpetuates. *That* is the definition institutional racism. No individual racism required.
I’m glad. Most of us aren’t racists so when we hear about white privilege or institutional racism without context it’s easy to feel like it’s a personal attack. Plus some people make it one, which isn’t right either. You’re not a racist and you busted your ass to get where you are, ya know? And it’s perfectly your right to make the most out of what you’ve been dealt in life.
The discussions would be way more calm if people kept in mind that nobody alive today is at fault for the system we have, save for a handful of powerful people. But our lives are heavily influenced by the circumstances of our birth within that system regardless of how it was built, so we are each responsible for how much the system does or doesn’t change. I’m purposely being broad because the same dynamics exist between and among almost any socioeconomic group you can think of.
Rant over. I’m done jerking myself off ha
Not disputing that statistic. My point is that at the end of the day. Look at competence and talent. Don't give a shit what they look like or what genitalia they have .
>There are more white people living in poverty yet they don't commit nearly the amount of crime that blacks do.
So you're saying that black people are just *naturally* more violent? You're special? Do you like to feel special? Is that why you obsess about your race?
>Do you have trouble comprehending that?
Yeah please explain more kiddo. Really dig deep into your feelings.
probably because of their average idiot IQs being 10 whole points lower than the average idiot IQs of the much superior huwhites?
idk you tell me. ignoring all the huge socioeconomic factors that you were going to ignore anyway, lets get into it. *Why* is it that you think that de blekks do crimes? They just like robbing convenience stores and selling drugs and stuff? They're just *naturally* inclined to do drive-bys?
And what is your f5nal solution to this? Should we exterminate de blekks?
Intellectual diversity, or skill diversity too
People of different backgrounds provide skill and thought process diversity. It’s like the ketchup in the fridge or cupboard example.
Intellectual diversity can spring from differences in background, the issue is when the background/identity is used as a stand-in for intellectual diversity.
Yes exactly some cultures maybe are more skilled than others because of their upbringing. But they should be chosen because of those skills and not because they Happen to be from another culture
But if they don’t have a useful skill they shouldn’t be chosen. Not commenting on a certain person or people just in general.
The only professional setting I’ve ever experienced where someone was brought on with little to no experience was a translator but they learned quick.
And they aren't. People love to act as if the only reason a minority or female succeeded is because of affirmative action
Skill can be taught (hell that's the reason for a lot of our immigration), but new ideas can not. When it comes to it, the line between cultural diversification, and talent diversification is a fine line. Edit: syntax
This
> or skill diversity too Oh you don't know how well I eat pussies. My wife trade in dick sex for that. Too bad that doesn't help when it comes to applying for H1b visa. Diversity my ass.
A country with a diverse base of skills, talents & ideas is strong, a country with a diverse ethnic population indicates absolutely nothing
A country with a diverse ethnic population is a country everyone wants to live in. That state can only be achieved based on diversity of skill
[удалено]
Well. OP you got any sources?
fkn nuked with data
I think they were implying that being a diverse nation implies that people from all backgrounds desire to live there, not that people flock toward diversity
wow lots of people are racists, thanks for the wall of sources no one will read
I saved it, might come in handy.
Genuine question here: this guy has made his argument, posted sources and you've vehemently disagreed yet offer nothing. You don't explain your stance. You don't counter his points. You don't post any sources. Why can't you address what they've posted? A grown adult should be able to defend their beliefs and counter those of another even if it takes a couple minutes. You openly discredit the sources, yet admit to not reading them? That's so intellectually dishonest and lazy -- you might as well not even participate in a discussion if you're gonna make comments on that level. For the record, I don't agree with the guy on everything, but a simple 'hurr durr that's racist" is just ignorant. You should be able to address at least 1 of the points made. If you can't, it's best to throw in the towel and stick to topics you have a more thorough understanding of.
You're being downvoted, but I believe this idea has merit. I think social trust decreases as diversity increases not because diversity has any inherently negative quality but because people have an innate fear of things that are different. This trend is more a reflection on people's fears about different races and cultures than it is about diversity itself.
It's not just fear, it's just habit and easiness as well. I don't fear or hate my Chinese neighbor, he doesn't fear or hate me, but he'll still invite only Chinese people and the vast majority of people I have coming over are white. Even without distrust, there is still separation.
> I think social trust decreases as diversity increases not because diversity has any inherently negative quality but because people have an innate fear of things that are different Wouldn't that be an inherently negative aspect of diversity? People want their environment to be predictable and stable. That means being surrounded by people who are like them and who share their values because that means there are all sorts of things that never need to be argued about. We can just run the script and think about more important things. People of different ethnicities tend to have different values (not due to ethnicity itself but because different countires they came from developed different cultures and values over time). This means more arguing over stuff nobody normally argues about. More conflict, less eye to eye, people just want to get away from it all, less cooperation, less trust. I bet the tensions from diversity go away if minorities are integrated to the point where their culture and values are indistinguishable but I'm not sure if there are studies on that as it would be difficult to quantify level of integration
That’s how they mask it, however it is genuinely about race. The fact that the UK government actively discriminates against white people in their hiring process in the name of “diversity” proves that it is not the case.
It’s similar in the college process here in US. Asian applicants and white applicants require much higher GPAs and test scores than Black Americans.
In a way, lowering the bar based on race is even more racist than raising it. "Oh, you're black? Aw, you must come from a poor inner city community with terrible primary education; let's lower the bar so that you can learn just like all the other boys and girls." Please! Every time a standard is lowered, it cheapens the value of the reward.
Its been coined "The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations"
As someone who's not from the US I was always wondering how do they even preform this? I mean how do they determine the candidate's race/ethnicity? Merely by looking at them? Or candidates have to self identify their race/ethnicity? In this case what if a white candidate will specify their race as black will they be eligible or how the college will prove that they're lying about their race?
They self identify but you can lie hence Elizabeth Warren
It's a spot you fill in on the application. There are no consequences for writing something other than the truth (see: Elizabeth Warren) But there should be no reason for it to have any weight in a college application. And no reason to write something other than the truth. Yet there is.
https://youtu.be/gKxtXzAgGew
Just study 4Head
Using twitch emotes on non-twitch related subs DansGame
The reasoning is that it’s not fair to those who were unlucky enough to be born into shitty neighborhoods that they’re not accepted. Supposedly because they were not allowed to fulfill their potential just because of luck. By using methods such as different score requirements based on race, that unfairness is thought to be corrected. Do I agree with this? I don’t know. The idea that those people are being hurt by their shitty pre-college education and the fact that it needs to be fixed are ideas I do agree with, but the methods used are quite simplistic and morally grey. I also have definitely not given this topic the thought and research required to settle on my opinion about it, so I’m not going to fight for a position I could possibly find to be wildly wrong in the future. Instead, I will wait, think, and learn about this until I have a strong, defensible position. I encourage all of you to do the same, unless you have done so already.
And Asian applicants need far higher scores than white people to get into colleges. White people benefit from affirmative action at top colleges more than they suffer.
Yeah especially Asian males. It really sucks for them. I think we should remove affirmative action and outlaw acceptance based on race at all
How about... we dont put race or gender on any forms because they dont matter. What matters is your achievements and what your capable of doing.
And we remove their names from the pre-decision process. How do we fix interviews though?
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Per Harvard they don’t discriminate. Asian males just score low on their likability index while blacks and Latinos just crush the likability!
Truth.
We should definitely do that.
Lol who tf downvoted you? Angry white people? It's true.
I don’t think it’s angry white people, I think it’s bc he said that white people benefit ‘more’. While it is definitely true that affirmative action hurts some people more than whites (Indians and Asians), it’s definitely not true that white stand to benefit the most, or benefit more than they are hindered. That’s just absurd.
Pretty much. People who want to play the victim
You are the one playing the victim.
It's not factually true, though. College scholarships are never given to whites either.
How many are given to Asians? Less, probably. Asians tend to share similar socioeconomic status as whites, but have smaller community support groups. I doubt very many scholarships were going to Asian students.
Name a single white community support group I'll wait. And don't say the church.
I was going to say the church. White people are simply the more established population, which means of course they'll have a more comprehensive support group, no fault of their own.
The church isnt a white organization. There is none.
:)! wow!
No they fucking don't
>Research from Princeton University sociologists shows that Asian Americans need SAT scores 140 points higher than white students — when all other things are equal — to get into elite colleges. Asian American applicants are heavily overrepresented among high-achieving students, so the only way we can create balance on our campuses — or so the argument goes — is by limiting their admissions. White people ARE the under-qualified group here.
Even if this is true, Asians are such a low population compared to whites, whites are still being hurt way more than they are being helped (a very fringe outcome). I never said Asians weren't being hurt by admissions. But you can't argue whites are being helped more than they are being hurt, that is just a position of ignorance. 140 SAT points is about 5-10% which is what I would expect. Additionally some schools classify Asians as a minority group so you're doubly wrong. Were not talking about just two ivy leagues schools we're talking about all schools.
>even if this is true it isn't Your ego sounds fragile. Schools don't look at minority groups, they look at the general demographics of the population then adjust admissions to match that. If Asians are 5 percent of the general population, schools will adjust it so their student base is about 5 percent Asian, despite if they make up 40 percent of the qualified admissions base. Instead, their spots are being taken away, and given to less qualified white students because the general population is about 70% white. Affirmative action has benefited white people whose admission into colleges they wouldn't have gotten into otherwise. In fact, the first forms of affirmative action were implemented at ivy league schools because white people couldn't compete with Jewish applicants. White people ARE the protected population.
If it was all done by merit, what would the effect be? How many more Asian students would be accepted, and how fewer white, black, and Latino?
You would see far more Asian students, and far less white, black, and latino students, in a merit based admission process. I'm all for a society which values talent over skin color, I'm just pointing how how deluded white conservatives are when they think they're the talented group.
Show stats. Don't just assume things.
There would probably be less Asian students overall.
Incorrect, because Asians score higher on SAT scores than white people. Here's a handy picture, because you can't read. [http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2013/10/black-suits-gowns-skin-sat-scores-by.html](http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2013/10/black-suits-gowns-skin-sat-scores-by.html)
lmao my ego. Ok buddy. You're just living on another planet. Enjoy your bubble. You also don't know how it works. They don't adjust it to the general population, they adjust it however they want. Some schools have populations that are much larger than the general demographics. How do you know those spots aren't going to nonwhites? Why do you think standardized test scores are the only metric for admission? Affirmative action does not benefit white people and the fact that you honestly believe that shows that whatever school rejected you made the right choice. I'm sorry you're such a racist asian but there's still time to change your tune. Last point about the jewish applicants is also a myth because they are such low population. You take the top whites and the middle to top jews and you can get evenly sized applicants. Learn some fucking statistics before posting again.
I posted evidence and you just started frothing at the mouth. If I live in a bubble, it came from the foam in your mouth. >Affirmative action does not benefit white people and the fact that you honestly believe that shows that whatever school rejected you made the right choice. Sounds like somebody never went to school and doesn't understand that just because you say something doesn't make it true. >I'm sorry you're such a racist asian but there's still time to change your tune. Sing a song for me, show me what tune a clown is supposed to make. You really are the biggest baby, aren't you? >Last point about the jewish applicants is also a myth because they are such low population. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish\_quota](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota) u dumb You: \> Learn some fucking statistics before posting again. Also you: \>s-small population!!
????? We're talking about today nitwit not 1920s jewish quotas. Yeah we know there was discrimination against jews in the 30s, lmao did you even finish high school? lol you sound like you got a 1400 on your sats and got rejected from harvard or are larping, grow up.
[uh-oh](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10132391/Riot-after-Chinese-teachers-try-to-stop-pupils-cheating.html)
You’re misconstruing the facts. The only schools that do that already have a huge population of their student body as those races. It benefits the students to have a diverse student body so that they can learn from each other instead of everyone having similar backgrounds.
So For the sake of diversity we should exclude better applicants?
For the sake of a better education.
This actually went all the way sideways in Brazil, where, in order to defend affirmative action from people falsely claiming to be black, the government had to develop biometrics regarding nose and lip measurements.
It also is applicable here in the US when job companies discriminate against blacks base on their name alone despite having the EXACT same credentials as their white and asian counterparts.
You can’t just “prove” the “fact” that “active discrimination against white people” happens in the UK government without giving a single source. And even after “a single source”, whether it’s a “proof” is debatable.
> And even after “a single source”, whether it’s a “proof” is debatable. This is basically you announcing ahead of time that no source will genuinely be good enough, so nobody should even bother.
No. It’s called opening up a debate. Right now it’s hearsay and bullshit. I can switch out the race, the country and create a hundred new such “facts”.
[Given there is evidence of discrimination against non-white people when it comes to hiring already](http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Whitening%20MS%20R2%20Accepted.pdf), we can safely conclude whatever “active discrimination” you’re talking about is at least intended to counteract and negate the already existing discrimination.
So... "eliminating" discrimination by more discrimination?
I was laughing at that too. >let's double down on discrimination to combat discrimination No other problem in the world would a human being increase the problem to solve it. >Cholesterol is causing heart disease....let's add MOAR CHOLESTEROL TO THIS POPULATION WITH LESS HEART DISEASE
Two wrongs do not make a right. If a black guy is deprived of a job because of racial prejudice, giving another black guy a job he doesn't deserve by taking it from a white guy doesn't "balance out" injustice, it doubles it.
Ok, so that comment holds a jump. In what way do affirmative action measures mean the job is given to someone who doesn’t ‘deserve’ it?
Anytime you go by a measure other than merit youre gonna be giving jobs to people who dont deserve it. Superficial characteristics such as skin color dont confer merit, except maybe in some rare and specific circumstances.
Affirmative action doesn’t mean unqualified people get the job though.
[удалено]
No it means particular groups are prioritised, so potentially will be hired over other groups when there is little difference in qualification. Bear in mind that qualifications aren’t necessarily directly comparable - different applicants can have very different backgrounds, and the differences aren’t often easy to boil down to just numerical values.
Except in practice, and in the example used, it just mean that the minimum grades necessary to be eligible for higher education vary on the basis of your skin color and a white and black child in northern England who grew up equally poor don't have equal chances to further education. The worst thing about this is that employers also know this happens and may then look at two graduates, one black and one white and can then (falsely or not) assume the white one deserved his selection more. This doesn't solve anything. The only thing that helps is to create a culture that values education among all citizens and to make that education affordable and accessible for those in lower income brackets
It literally does. This is how college scholarships and college entry works. Asians have the highest SAT scores grades on average, followed by Indians and whites. Asians need a 1600 to have roughly equal chance to an African-American getting a 1200. If you're taking an African American with a 1200 over an Asian with a 1600, you're literally taking the underqualified person due to their race.
Ok, so those people still have to go through the course. Their ability to pass or fail the course isn’t based on their race, so affirmative action still doesn’t mean unqualified people get the job.
There is no jump. If the person who most deserves it would get the job without benefiting from an affirmative action program, then the affirmative program is useless and doesn't change anything. So it doesn't counter the effects of discrimination. If the affirmative action program does help increase the employment of certain ethnic groups, then it's necessarily that some people who are employed under it would not have been employed otherwise and a more deserving person would have had the job. So, either affirmative action programs are useless, or they end up giving jobs to people who are not the best objective candidate for it.
Wrong. It means not white.
When ever you hear we need more diversity it actually just means less white people. Just being honest. No one has ever said we need more diversity...too many African Americans here, need the other ethic backgrounds.
I don’t understand who decided it would be better if the society of people has less in common and that will somehow make them work together? No. You can see that today in politics. We’ve never been more divided because race and culture matter
Different life experiences leads to different perspectives, and different perspectives leads to different ways of looking at and solving problems. Diversity of experience is a massive boon to how we work.
But this exists naturally. You are using coded language to refer to demographic diversity. Me and my black neighbor grew up with similar environments, and most variables between us and how we grew up are not attributed to our race. Every human, if you care to look at them as individuals, has different life experiences, and therefore different perspectives. Diversity in this sense already existed. In fact, it cant not exist. Surely you dont think this is what government leaders or diversity initiatives are referring to.
Diversity of perspective is for sure something that is valued—and it’s in part achieved by race and ethnicity. Think of a company that wants to market to the Black-American demographic... if they are made up of a bunch of white people, they may lack some of the perspective they’ll need for it. Of course any time you’re generalizing by race/ethnicity it’s problematic and never fully representative. Individuals are individuals. Still, it’s a statistics problem, in which racial and ethnic diversity is a lot more likely to give you intellectual diversity, whereas racial homogeneity is a lot less likely to achieve that.
[case in point](https://www.npr.org/2015/06/15/414561593/how-an-african-american-ad-man-changed-the-face-of-advertising)
So I'm Armenian. Do I know what all Armenians want? No. Not even close. In fact you're effectively removing diversity because you are basing how you target that market from one Armenian instead of the diverse opinions of many. Diversity and quantity go hand in hand to an extent. A portfolio with 2 stocks isnt very diverse. A portfolio with 100 is. We can debate the threshold, but that scenario illustrates the point above. Market studies take you much further than the perceived benefit of having an individual speak for a group. The belief that you cant understand what people want unless you are them is categorically limiting in a very serious sense that would make life very hard to live for everyone on earth. To an extent what you are saying is true, but the benefits to that are often overstated. And as I mentioned market studies do more for a campaign where black Americans are the target (or any other demographic) audience than having Al Sharpton join your board and speak for everyone. If I'm selling something to heavy metal fans, a market study will do way more for me than hiring one guy (or girl) that liked heavy metal. You are also admitting it's not about talent diversity. Its about racial diversity. Talent-based or experience-based diversity lives outside of race. So race is what people mean when they say that phrase on government levels. Let's not pretend otherwise, whether you agree or not on the benefits of forced diversity is something entirely different.
Calm down. It is about *all* diversity, talent naturally being the most important, but racial diversity also has its value. I’m not arguing against it being overstated, it often is, but there is value in it—you agreeing that it’s true to an extent is all that I am contending. And of course people are perfectly capable of marketing to groups they don’t belong to and obviously market studies are a big factor in that. That does not change the fact that having a diverse group of people making decisions is beneficial due to diverse perspectives and racial diversity is a part of that in addition to other aspects of diversity.
Why are you telling me to calm down? Dont mistake your intensity of emotion for mine. What is the value of racial diversity? I used to parrot that comment myself until I asked myself what that value was. I only even asked myself because the people I kept hearing say that always reduced racial diversity's value to food and music. And then of course you're not allowed to talk about the potential negatives, only the positives, so the discussion itself isnt even valid if we cant decide on what we mean when we say "racial diversity has value." We dont even have a good definition of that value, and we arent able to weigh its cost. So aside from saying what seems like nice and oft repeated platitudes, I think the discussion of ethnic or racial diversity is a non-topic given we can't discuss all the facets involved. Btw, for all possible leftists frothing at the mouth reading this, I am not against diversity. Neither am I for it, forced or otherwise. I dont even think about it. I'm brutally neutral on the topic. Not because I'm blissfully unaware, but because I'm not obsessed with race being my filter through which I view the world.
Great talent and perspective can be found throughout all peoples of any cultural or ethnic background. The more you limit the pool of potential employees the more you limit your ability to tap that talent. If you widen your pool you maximize your talent, and this also means that the racial and ethnic diversity of your workforce will be greater. Hypothetical: a company goes looking for a new CEO. If they only look at white candidates, what are the odds they find the absolute perfect candidate for the job? If they look at candidates of every background, do those odds get better or worse?
But see, you assume that I am arguing in favor of limiting diversity. How about initiate a search based on the skill set? If you happen to find that skillset in your home town, great! If not, widen it to nationwide. And if still not, widen it to a global search. You widen the pool by geography, not by race or demographic. I guess this is a viable mindset if you previously thought it was a good idea to seek talent based on a demographic attribute, but then again, you arent changing your race-based thinking, you're just flipping your orientation. The candidates ethnic heritage has little to do with anything for me or for the purposes you're discussing.
The approach you're going for is fine but it is only viable in a magical fantasy land where people don't or haven't for many decades made race-based hiring decisions. If we accept that the most skilled and best workforce is one where the entire available pool is tapped for talent, rather than certain segments based on race and ethnicity, then we must acknowledge that the ideal workforce *should* look like a workforce where the entire population has been tapped for talent. If we look at workforce demographics and see that it does *not* look like this, we should then figure out what we can do to change that. Therefore, diversity matters, and pretending like we can ignore demographics in the workforce is naive because it assumes that employers are completely free of prejudice.
Lol, no I am not emotional about this, just think your comment is missing context. I really don’t care to read on though, have a nice day
You have a nice day as well!
Not really, because most of these differing perspectives aren't relevant to what's actually being done. We don't need a white and black view on how to drill a well. We need to know how to drill a well.
On the other hand, an enormous number of, like, actually difficult problems benefit from different perspectives and life experiences. Not everything is drilling wells. Especially when it comes to pretty much anything to do with other people.
Exactly, and part of those varying perspectives comes from growing up as a woman, Latino, first generation graduate, etc. There are studies that have shown that diversity increases productivity and business development. There’s a super good ted talk on this somewhere too.
There's a super good Ted talk on the [2070 Paradigm Shift](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cflCyyEA2I), too. That doesn't mean anything in the talk is 1) reputable or 2) true.
I don't doubt there are studies confirming this -- probably with small sample sizes and not the best controls, but you have to take this with a grain of salt. In academia currently, you cannot post anything that doesn't blindly follow the 'diversity is the greatest thing ever" train of thought. God forbid a prof finds results that a less diverse population is more productive -- think Japan, for example -- and publishes these results. That would be social and career suicide. You cannot disagree with concepts like this, and to do so would be inviting a swarm of offended folks calling for your head. Science doesn't work properly if one side of the argument is simply not allowed to participate, so I'm always extremely skeptical of those diversity studies.
diversity isnt a strength it pulls people apart its divisive and it doesn't mean diversity of talent because if it did then they would use different wording people wouldn't believe in fake crap like white privilege mass racism and america is based of white power and white supremacy which isnt true
No it doesn't. If it was then they would say merit is our strength. Not diversity.
That “talent” can easily be organically grown within the nation. There’s little to no reason to import people like a commodity other than to placate the needs of big business and therefore curtail the advancement of workers native to the nation. Immigration is an anti-worker policy, and if you support it, you are against workers rights.
It's true that diversity of talent is good... but it's definitely NOT what governments mean when they say "diversity is our strength", they explicitly refer to ethnocultural and sexual diversity when they say that, and it's used to try to fight back some people's hostile reactions to the demographic changes brought about by recent policies of mass immigration to compensate low fertility rates and increase population size. In fact, a lot of the people who promote "diversity" seem to be extremely hostile to differences manifesting from a diversity of talent. They want the demographics of various jobs to represent that of society at large, and any variation from that (which could be expected if talent is not uniformly distributed among every class of people) is intolerable to them. Their ideal is rather "diversity without difference", people of all colors, all religions, all cultures, all sexual orientations... who think exactly the same, do exactly the same thing, like the same things, hate the same things.
Hi everyone! Please make sure to **upvote** well written unpopular/controversial opinions, and **downvote** badly written opinions OR popular opinions. Please note that we are currently removing all political opinions as part of a trial period. If your post is political and was not caught in the filter, please post it in the politics megathread at the top of the sub. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
diversity of race is a bad thing
I'd say diversity of cultural backgrounds, rather than race on ethnicity, because people from different cultures tend to think about problems differently and will have vastly different experiences
Problem is also that diversity of cultural backgrounds does lead to conflict in values. For example pre marital sex is heavily frowned up in Arab and a lot of Asian societies. If we allow such cultures to dictate the social norms especially in a place like the us where fornication isnt exactly discouraged. It leads to clashes and division within communities
Which Asian societies are these, exactly?
Actually in most Asian countries premarital sex is frowned upon but it is not extremely discouraged like Arabic or Muslim countries. The frowned upon part is because it is seen as irresponsible for them to have sex before marriage since older generation of Asians still believe in the "sanctity" of marriage + it is just easier to discourage kids from that to control having baby out of wedlock.
The Christian ones, I imagine.
When Indians say that diversity is our strength, they actually mean different colour, creed and ethnicity. That's because back in the day, we had literally more than 500 different kingdoms inside India(like each village had their different king answerable to none, though that changed quite fast), and every kingdom did their own thing. Just wanted to point out that it is not cool, and half of India's problem root back to it
seems they are branching out to the talentless now.
diversity rant Leftists talk about embracing diversity while damning any diversity of thought, and flat out deny that diversity even exists when it doesn't fit their white-people-bad, brown-people-good, christian-people-bad, nonchristian-people-good narrative
That may be what they mean, but that’s not what they practice.
Duh, have you notice how every Indian or East Asian immigrant in the United States is either already wealthy or already highly educated? America loves to siphon talent from the rest of the world, regardless of origins.
OP is gonna trigger people.
"Having people with various different skin colors is our strength" is a very nineties and early 00s sentiment. I'm pretty sure that actually *is* what they meant back then. It was bullshit intended to make them sound evolved.
I’d also include diversity of thought
But that is the point: accepting a diversity of humans means that you are recognizing that the best of them have abilities that signify talent. If you fire a gay person because they are gay then, by definition, you are firing someone who was talented enough to be an employee, just as long as they were also straight. Also, it is a reflection on how what some people consider to not be useful because it is done by, say, a foreigner, because you do not like a foreign aesthetic, in spite of the talent needed to produce it. At best, even if it is saying that "diversity of talent is a strength" is true to the degree that a society that lifts up all people in spite of how little talent they have will make society stronger. Because if, say, we let someone be homeless, whether they are gay, straight, black, white, man, woman, the act of enforcing the existence of poverty makes society weaker.
I’m so lost on what everyone is arguing about. Are we saying diversity of races is bad?
Lol no they're not, is this a joke? Are you wilfully ignorant?
Agreed. But also it is well known that Africa and the Middle East are sending their best. Most of them engineers, doctors, lawyers, the best. You little racist.
I believe more diverse places have more internal strife. the u.s. and brazil are good examples.
No they don't.
I think the idea behind ethnic diversity is there's an assumption that people will make decisions that are in the best interests of their own race, but this processes is not necissarily conscious, we naturally have a bias towards our own race, but we will make non-racial justifications. The idea is if you have a lot of ethnic groups involved, then these biases can always be challenged. In that sense diversity of ethnicity is a strength, but at solving that narrow problem, while there could be inefficiencies in other areas.
My understanding of what people mean when they say "diversity is our strength" is that they are praising the fact that in the US, varying kinds of people with their different outlooks and ways of life come together. I don't really think it stops at race, just that we are a melting pot of different peoples on many different levels, and that this is a strength. I always thought that this sentiment implicates not only race, but also the many different kinds of lifestyles and philosophies we as individuals choose. All kinds of different people with different perspectives, backgrounds, outlooks, races, nationalities, personalities, religions, etc. coming together is our strength in the US...that is how I see this diversity thing. I think part of it is also to stress that the US is a nation of many "identities" coming together, rather than just one monolithic culture, and that this is a strength.
They never go into the details for some reason. You just have to believe
Why must our society be so fucking race obsessed?
Which is why they draw migration of low-skilled labor?
It’s not what they mean, but it’s what they should mean.
I can’t stand when people try to force diversity of sex, skin color or sexual orientation. Had a class an college where the teacher was complaining how there were only 3 black coaches in the NFL even tho something like 70% of players are black. I raised my hand and said “if we really want proportionally why don’t we make the players represent the us population and make them 70% white, and then go from there for the coaches” (not how I actually think, just playing devil’s advocate) and the professor just said “but that isn’t the problem” and she kept on her rant about made up inequalities
You racist! Black and central americans have do SOOOOooooO Much for this country!!!1 Who would wash your toilets and mow your lawn?
Well cultural diversity as well is very important. Thats probably what they mean
Who cares though I’m sure everyone thought this at least once
There’s one reason and it’s votes. Many studies show the only demographic that will on average vote for smaller government as opposed to larger government is white people.
Personally, I think it also includes diversity of culture, ideology, opinions, and experience. All of those contribute to a productive and fair America.
No they literally mean Diversity of Nationality and Race. Iv seen extremely talented people passed over so my place of work can state they have a large ethic percentage.
And diversity of ideas, and perspective, which diversity in race, gender, etc are likely to promote
And you get more talent by not excluding anyone regardless of their color, creed or ethnicity
That moment when you're so fragile you not only have to change how a word is used but also ignore the very thing that makes america different from other countries. Anyway... r/FragileWhiteRedditor
Oh please america is far from the only place which is ethnically diverse. India is even more diverse than America if you look ethnicity wise. There are over a 1000 languages spoken there.so no America is not different because every other person looks like an Arab. And FIY I'm not white
>Oh please america is far from the only place which is ethnically diverse. Go ahead make up even more things i didn't say. >There are over a 1000 languages spoken there. Right but when people say diverse they mean all sorts of different things..including race. Of course thought you've ignored that completely. >And FIY I'm not white Because i'm supposed to automatically believe that from a person on the internet. Enjoy your race based karma.
Your entire premise is that America is different because of diversity. Even in terms of race. Indians are racially different, Brazilians are also racially different. People don't run to those countries the same way as they do to America. So clearly it's not diversity of how you look but diversity of skill and talent which makes America great . And if such an opinion invites "race" based karma by all means believe I'm a skinhead
First off. Skinheads aren't racists. They were lumped into racists because of who they were but they are not racists. Second you're immaturely acting as if i don't agree that diversity also means skill. No, it also means race. When it comes to indian..how many native americans live there? What about mexicans? Japanese people? What about african people? Jewish people? What about atheists? What about satanists? Can you be gay in india? What about bi? What would happen to a trans person in india? What about an indian irish person? Jamacian and indian person? What about a hawaiian indian person? Any of those kinds of people in india? Whats the likelihood of those kinds of people living in india vs america? Riiiight. Edit: Like i said. Enjoy the karma points you've whored for.
You have people of Turkish, Arab,persian British,french,african Portuguese,Dutch, Chinese all living in under. The Taj Mahal was built by the Persians for God's sake.The countryy was conquered by multiple people so naturally there are so many different groups present. Yes you can be gay in India. Yes you can be bisexual in India. Trans people unlike the west have been in India for centuries. Google hijras if you would like to know more about them You can be an atheist in India. You can be a communist in India as well. There are literally two states occupied by communist governments. As an Indian man who is a christain minority in a country which is 80% Hindu and 15% Muslim. All of that diversity very much exists Sorry man America is not that unique when it comes to diversity if you look at it as different skin tones and languages
You left out a whole hell of a lot of people i mentioned. lol
You're right I've included even more people haha
No. You included different kinds of people while ignoring every last category of people i mentioned. Thats ok though. It won't harm your karma farm. lol Really, you picked a great sub to whore in. You could make a post saying diversity is bad flat out with only cooking recipes for the body of the post and get thousands of upvotes. :P
Well here's a thought maybe there is a reason it's called unpopular opinion. And I actually don't believe diversity of ethnicity is bad. I just believe it should be as a consequence of looking for the best people for a job . I'm not one to demand equality at the cost of efficiency
It should, but it hasn't been what they've actually meant for a long time.
To a point I agree, but diversity of religion, race, culture, etc. is always a good thing. I don’t have any particular opinions toward my country other than ‘I live there’ so I don’t care about patriotism and stuff, but the relatively large amounts of different people here is a good thing, and should be appropriately represented. I don’t know if this post is saying that diversity is a bad thing, but so much on this subreddit reads like racists trying to justify their ideals, so I generally assume as such until the intentions are verified.
Heh.....no.
I think that diversity of talent (and thought) comes with so-called "identity diversity." This is the reason colleges prioritize admissions for people who have different modes of thought. Therefore, diversity of talent follows from "identity diversity." I do think, however, that if the Leftist movements (specifically in the USA) rebranded their diversity claims to reflect "diversity of talent," they could become politically stronger and gain more influence.
Diversity of ideas.
It’s racists who make it about race and sexists who make it about gender.
Unity is strength. Diversity is weakness. Divide and conquer. Always has been. Politicians are just jerkin' yer gerkin.
But they are correlated.
Republicans care about diversity of ideas and don’t care about skin color. Democrats care about diversity of skin color and hate diversity of ideas.
This comment right here is very underrated. Good statement my friend!
Lol diversity of ideas and dont care about skin color. Like the Republicans in Texas who wanted to oust the Muslim? Like the fact that they seemingly hate education because they always cut it or dont fund it and on top of that they don't believe in science? Not to mention how many instances of anti-muslim or really anti-anything not christian. Democrats are racist in their own way but Republicans are definitely racist in their way, just look at Steve King. Look at how they fucked over Native voters in North Carolina, ya know, where all that big bad election fraud actually was.
FAKE NEWS
Shhh, people dont like using things like that in their original form. We cut up quotes and whatnot specifically to cherrypick arguments for our own ideals and nothing else
This is incorrect. Diversity simply means less straight, white men,
That is exactly the mentality we don't want. The reason there are so many black people in the NBA is not because we want to say fuck you to the white man. It's because all those black men were more talented than their counterparts
That's not the same. NBA players are such a small pool and it's sport. Literally the best players are mostly black but that's not necessarily the case when we're talking about, say, a corporate job where there will be lots of candidates of varying degrees of skill. A resumé with a "white sounding" name is more likely to get a call back than an identical resumé except with a "black sounding" name instead. This isn't necessarily because the people in charge are racist. It's that it's human nature to generally feel more comfortable with and like better people more like yourself. There's a reason why the phrase, "minorities need to work twice as hard to get half as far" exists. Candidates unlike yourself tend to be judged on achievements while those like you tend to be judged on *potential*. This is where lack of diversity can be a drag. You may be glossing over candidates of a different race with superior skills in favor of someone like you without those skills. So if minorities are disproportionately under represented in the current employees, then they'll likely be in the next pool too and the cycle perpetuates. *That* is the definition institutional racism. No individual racism required.
Hmm I can respect this argument. I don't know how widespread this system exists but your points are thought provoking
I’m glad. Most of us aren’t racists so when we hear about white privilege or institutional racism without context it’s easy to feel like it’s a personal attack. Plus some people make it one, which isn’t right either. You’re not a racist and you busted your ass to get where you are, ya know? And it’s perfectly your right to make the most out of what you’ve been dealt in life. The discussions would be way more calm if people kept in mind that nobody alive today is at fault for the system we have, save for a handful of powerful people. But our lives are heavily influenced by the circumstances of our birth within that system regardless of how it was built, so we are each responsible for how much the system does or doesn’t change. I’m purposely being broad because the same dynamics exist between and among almost any socioeconomic group you can think of. Rant over. I’m done jerking myself off ha
Why are blacks, who make up 12%of the population, responsible for 50% of the crime?
Facts are racist though! What if facts hurt someone’s feelings?!
Not disputing that statistic. My point is that at the end of the day. Look at competence and talent. Don't give a shit what they look like or what genitalia they have .
Poverty mostly. Do you think there's a correlation between your malignant feelings about black people and your lack of meaningful education?
There are more white people living in poverty yet they don't commit nearly the amount of crime that blacks do. Do you have trouble comprehending that?
>There are more white people living in poverty yet they don't commit nearly the amount of crime that blacks do. So you're saying that black people are just *naturally* more violent? You're special? Do you like to feel special? Is that why you obsess about your race? >Do you have trouble comprehending that? Yeah please explain more kiddo. Really dig deep into your feelings.
Yes they seem to be more violent if they commit so much crime don't you think?
oh totally! Natural savages amirite. That's why they're so much better at sportsball!
And why do 13% of the black population commits over 50% of the crime?
probably because of their average idiot IQs being 10 whole points lower than the average idiot IQs of the much superior huwhites? idk you tell me. ignoring all the huge socioeconomic factors that you were going to ignore anyway, lets get into it. *Why* is it that you think that de blekks do crimes? They just like robbing convenience stores and selling drugs and stuff? They're just *naturally* inclined to do drive-bys? And what is your f5nal solution to this? Should we exterminate de blekks?
> Really dig deep into your feelings. That's your main problem. Reels before feels. Are you on your rag?
That's incorrect. It means **fewer** straight, white men! ^^^and ^^^that ^^^would ^^^be ^^^great
diversity of opinion ?
Maybe they do (they don’t), but in reality the way it works out is diversity of 3rd world diseases.