Posted on 01/28/2007 5:52:08 AM PST by Nextrush
What I always wanted to ask people who spout platitudes such as "diversity is our strength" about this scenario:
Say you want a new car prototype designed and built. You have two choices of teams. One team is all Japanese/white/black/hispanic/etc men but they have all sorts of degrees and skills such as mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, metal working, etc. The second team has whites, blacks, hispanics, Asians, women, homosexuals, transgenders, and a Muslim. The people in the second group all have IQ's below 100.
Which group are you going to choose to maximize your chances of building a working car?
Yes, diversity certainly can be synonymous with mediocrity. Sometimes, however, different perspectives can be useful. But usually those different perspectives, IF VALUABLE, arise form different JOB-RELATED experiences, not just different life environments.
Diversity is a tool that the lest uses to pit certain groups against each other.
I like your thinking, Diversity is a lot like the doctrine of both Islamist and Communist...divide and conquer.
Keep up the good work. We need to bring a lot more light to the discussion and it is obvious also that MLK was an extremely effective tool of the Left and their Communist masters!
Modern diversity, as promoted by the libs, is when everyone looks different but thinks the same (hint: like a liberal).
There is a great counter-argument to "diversity".
"Warrior diversity".
Most people and nations can take pride in that at some point in history, they had a proud warrior tradition. And when you mention this, it kills "diversity" dead.
The reason is, that "diversity" is both racist and belittling.
Those who preach "diversity" do so from the position that *their* race is "better", as being from that race, they can offer "diversity" to lesser races. Other races would never think of anything as superior as "diversity".
It is like a morality tale crafted in Hollywood, which is based on the incorrect assumption that those who create the morality tale are morally superior to those they are preaching it to. Hollywood morally superior? Hah.
But you cannot fake being a warrior. Even if one side is armed with guns, and the other with spears, being a warrior means that you stand up with honor, and fight out of duty, even if you lose.
And in honor and in duty, you *are* equal. Win or lose, if you stand your ground, you are honorable warriors.
Which is why the preachers of "diversity" hate it. Because *they* are not warriors. They are decidedly inferior to warriors. They would not stand their ground, they have no honor and respect no duty.
And they know it. And this is why they are always on the look out for "downtrodden peoples" and "underdogs". So they can find someone they can feel superior to. Someone they hope will beg them for help, which they can parcel out in exchange for being told how superior they are.
Warriors don't beg. And they generally don't suffer fools with inferiority complexes who demand to be admired as superior.
So yes, the next time someone mentions "diversity", be sure to mention "warrior diversity". See how quickly it shuts them up.
I am developing the same thought with:
"Melting Pot to Sorting Bin, How the left has used the tactics of multiculturalism to steal the American dream from those who need it most".
ON college campuses, diversity is a political ploy to allow the unqualified to receive the same promotion, consideration, and rewards as those people who earn their way. It is as phony as the day is long, but has become an effective political sledgehammer for the driveling of the PC crowd.
Diversity is now my most hated word in the English language.
Best definition I've seen.
Same here - except that it runs a close second to "tolerance."
You almost got it right. I work in manufacturing, and here's how it works:
You have a small team of talent that gets the job done--engineers in a variety of disciplines like mechanical, electrical, software engineering. Those people and a handful of technical and clerical folks make up about 10-20% of your company.
The other 80-90% are, at best, paycheck-gatherers. If you're lucky they don't burden the talent too badly. This is the group you put your "diversity hires" in. You pay them at the low end of the scale and, if you're smart, consume their time with helpful tasks that don't tax the talent. If you're dumb, you allow them to engage in activities that distract the talent and affect the bottom line.
It's a microcosm of real life--you have a small group of producers and a large group of non-producers that depend on the former group for survival (but don't tell them that unless you're wearing asbestos underwear).
When I went to University "diversity" meant simply - not White, not male, not heterosexual, not Christian, etc. It is basically a codified system of repression for normal folks. "Down with the fascist Establishment Patriarchy" must sound a little too dated these days.
Diversity is from the Latin meaning, DI -bend over, VERSITY - White Man.
....But usually those different perspectives, IF VALUABLE, arise form different JOB-RELATED experiences, not just different life environments.
However you are using logic - or as the lefties say "You're thinking linearly"(is that phrase still used?).
What you are seeing with the re-definition of diversity is a deliberate corruption of the language. Consistent with Gramsciian Marxism.
Just remember that "diversity" is:
Celebrating that people are different,
while pretending not to notice any such differences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.