How they link this to military privatization is a mystery to me even after reading the article. To whit:
"Private vendors are not engaged in the same social engineering project as the military and, as a result, tend to hire and fire people based on their ability to work effectively as a team." ___ and there is a problem with this because? If true this would tend to promote greater diversity in the privatized military sector as those who could not work effectively as a team, despite differences, would be fired or would not apply in the first place. Which seem like it blows the whole premise of the article.
I have a headache.
It’s called freedom of association you euro twit.
We should FORCE people to act however we deem socially acceptable.....
IF they are white, if they are Muslim/other minority it is perfectly acceptable for them to self-segregate.
Statist Boot on the face of humanity...
Liberals believe that every need must be filled by a lottery. Anything else is unfair. And if the lottery does not come up utterly racially and every other which way balanced then the lottery must be “managed.”
You posted an excerpt.
Should have remembered to click that excerpt button before posting.
Her conclusion from the article..... If we want to develop a healthy democracy, we need a diverse and highly connected social fabric. This requires creating contexts in which the American public voluntarily struggles with the challenges of diversity to build bonds that will last a lifetime.
Yet she uses the military and our colleges and universities as examples AGAINST diversity.
People will do anything to Overcome Diversity.
Progressives are the worst at understanding their own selection bias and confirmation bias.
That people self segregate based on interests is not new or dangerous. The old joke about the most segregated time in America is Sunday morning didn’t prevent people from working together on Monday.
The greater problem is liberal elitism, that THEY and only they are smart, rational, educated, moral, and those who disagree are stupid, crazy, phobic/haters, uneducated (laden with the presumption that all good people convert when told about liberal values), immoral.
It lets them deny the opposing side any rational basis of an argument while simultaneously smearing them with one of many insults to one’s intelligence, point of view, etc.
And hate speech rules are de facto censorship of non-liberals, since non-liberals are labeled “haters”, so hate speech = anything liberals hate or say is based on hate.
Reinforcing this is the moral dogmatism of liberals attacking anyone who expresses a contrary view or questions their official narrative. Literal liberal hate mobs screaming at people, destroying property, trying to get people fired from work (weaponization of poverty), doxxing of people and harassing one’s relatives. These are fascist tactics, and liberals engage in them because they think they are fighting for a moral cause. That’s how they could call themselves social justice warriors and mean it. That they are following in the steps of the violent mobs of the French Revolution to Chinese Cultural Revolution is unknown to them, which is why their liberal professors didn’t teach them history in the first place.
It is liberals who have said that they are holier and smarter than everyone else, oh, those stupid / evil masses should convert ... and if they don’t, to heck with them. Minimize or demonize works most of the time, until there are so many disaffected that the election went the conservatives’ way.
Now you have people in such an ideological bubble that they can seriously write about being terrified of a working class plumber who obviously either didn’t care about the person’s affiliation enough to work for them in the first place ... while liberals are trying to have everyone who doesn’t meet their ideological checklist ousted from any position of authority, status or prominence.
Take a look at the home stands at any high school football game...