<p>i think diversity is a good thing. it provides different perspectives, as many people stated before. I actually watched about the first 5 minutes of the video, and i thought it was crazy. The guy said that diversity could be good in some cases, like building a house. you need people with different skills to build one, but then he talks about bringing people of different ethnicities that speak different languages to build the house. well, obviously you're going to have some problems when people can't communicate with each other. I thought that was an incredibly stupid example to show that diversity is bad.</p>
<p>wow i agree--that's a false analogy.</p>
<p>Exactly, that is not a valid example at all. First of all it assumes that the person contracting the workers picked workers who would not be able to communicate. Secondly it posits that because the people are of different ethnicities, they can't speak the same languages. </p>
<p>He's an idiot in a suit and an ugly tie. I want the OP to explain himself.</p>
<p>I like diversity. I don't like it though when the "diverse" population is still mostly white with a little minority blood, or rich. Non of the inner city kids I know made it into the elites, but plenty of Audi driving minorities did...whatever.</p>
<p>notice that the OP hasn't responded in a while. lol.</p>
<p>He just wanted a stupid AA argument. Probably he was ****ed he got rejected in places.</p>
<h2>Liberals are generally hypocritical when it comes to diversity.</h2>
<p><a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=_3YWApRHfL8%5B/url%5D">http://youtube.com/watch?v=_3YWApRHfL8</a> (NYU embracing diversity of thought)
<a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=cfnn7wTgoE8%5B/url%5D">http://youtube.com/watch?v=cfnn7wTgoE8</a> (Columbia appreciating other peoples viewpoints)</p>
<p>Diversity is better than communistic uniformity.</p>
<p>This is not an affirmative action debate. I’m already in college, I no longer care about where I did or did not get into college. I just wanted to see why people think we should celebrate diversity.</p>
<p>
First of all, I never used the word admire in my posts. I do not admire the man speaking; I said I thought this specific speech “pretty well summarizes a lot of my opinion on multiculturalism.” I have not backed other statements he made in other speeches. I said I am willing to defend his points in this specific speech.</p>
<p>I would never defend Hitler. I am a proud American. Hitler was an enemy of the United States, in addition to being a murderer.</p>
<p>If you read up on your history, American politicians of both parties throughout the early twentieth century were proponents of Eugenics. Even FDR thought eugenics was a good idea.</p>
<p> [quote] 2nd: This man states that that the founding fathers were anti-diversity and believed that homogeneous society was best.
That is true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The founding fathers also had slaves and syphilis. Seriously, they were human! They had their flaws!
[/quote]
We are all fallible. All of the upper class owned slaves – I won’t defend Slavery, but back then they did not even believe black people were human. It’s a bad example, but you would to give dogs the same rights as you and I have? No. (And I am not comparing any ethnic group to dogs; I am simply pointing out the POV of the founding fathers.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
3rd: Early naturalization laws provided citizen ship only to "free, white males". Seriously you needed to be a "free, white males" to take a sh/it back then. Stop using 18th century legislation and mentality in 21st century issues.
[/quote]
Same as before. I’m not anti-progress.</p>
<p>
[quote]
4th: This man makes the observation that "the US is now more diverse than before, but, is also more hated". He doesn't blame this on the atrocious foreign policy of the US, or the fact that we arrogantly ignored the United Nations and overthrew an (albeit corrupt) sovereign nation, or the racist attitudes that many Americans still harbour (especially towards Muslims). He backs up his claim that the US isn't hated because of it's current war, using World War Two as an example. He states that even though we killed hundreds of thousands we were "beloved" at the end of the war. Sure, beloved among our white, Western European brethern, but I sure wasn't feeling any love from the Japanese or the Soviets...
[/quote]
-I’m not going to into an Iraq War debate.
-The people who hate the West hate all Americans. Al-Qaeda hates American Muslims, too.
-People die in war. It sucks.
-I won’t debate this, but the US doesn’t need to be involved with the UN.
-The Japanese are now just as Western as Europe and the US. Sure we nuked them, but in doing so, we were able to abruptly stop the war and end further casualties for both sides.
-The Soviets hated us for 50 more years. I’m sure the Russian Jews, gypsies, gays, etc. (your diverse crowd) appreciated the US after we shut down Auschwitz, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All after 5 mins of listening... I need to stop because he is making me sick.
[/quote]
But, that is being intolerant! You should learn to appreciate and celebrate different viewpoints, right? </p>
<p>
[quote]
PS- I would love to debate this SOB
[/quote]
Okay?</p>
<p>
I agree. Everyone is different and special, right? Therefore, we are diverse automatically. Also, Communism sucks, and I would never defend it.</p>
<p> [quote=”Mj93”] notice that the OP hasn't responded in a while. lol.
I’m responding six hours after my last post. Sorry I’m not a 1337 internet message board all-star.</p>
<p>I’ll check back on this tomorrow sometime.</p>
<p>If you agree with a racist who is admired by white supremicists, you are in intersting company</p>
<p>And that garbage that is spewed about being tolerant of intolerance is so lame and pathetic, it is actually really funny</p>
<p>Guess I should be tolerant of the racial cleansing that happened in this country, the lies used to hide it, guess we shouid be tolerant of bigots and racists, according to some</p>
<p>Guess we should have been tolerant of segregation, and cross burnings, and while were at it, should have been tolerant of slavery</p>
<p>Tolerance of hatred, of hateful people, not gonna happen</p>
<p>I said I'd wait to respond again, but this came in pretty quick:
Guess we should have been tolerant of segregation, and cross burnings, and while were at it, should have been tolerant of slavery</p>
<p>Tolerance of hatred, of hateful people, not gonna happen
</p>
<p>Yeah, that first ammendment is one of those shoddy ideas held by our misogynistic, racist founding fathers!!!</p>
<p>Seriously, you think the concept is funny, but selective tolerance is NOT tolerance.</p>
<p>You don't need to be "tolerant" of past wrongs, but you need to acknowledge and learn from them.</p>
<p>The lack of diversity of ideas - which is a form of diversity I think is good, is the only kind ignored by the multiculturalists.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you agree with a racist who is admired by white supremicists, you are in intersting company
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you like the TV show Deal or No Deal, and a White Supremicist likes the same show, are you in "intersting company?" If you like strawberry ice cream, and a White Supremicist likes the same flavor, are you in "intrsting company?" I liked this specific speech. Apparently the guy is a Holocaust denier - I am not. Again, I do not admire the man, I just agree with his points stated in this specific speech.</p>
<p>I'm against "diversity," but I am very supportive of diversity.</p>
<p>What is the difference?</p>
<p>"Diversity" is an amorphous feel-good word frequently used by supporters of social engineering. They like to claim that it results in different points of view, backgrounds, and so forth, but what it really means is "unless you're an 'under-represented' minority, not applicable."</p>
<p>Diversity, on the other hand, is a wonderful thing. Each individual is inherently unique. Even identical twins have different personalities and interests. Whenever a university admits a student, it is admitting a different student with a different point of view, upbringing, set of interests, goals, and dreams.</p>
<p>Diversity happens naturally. There is no need to make "diversity" a goal when diversity will always result.</p>
<p>Only a socialist in favor of massive social engineering would claim that a campus like Berkeley, where there are more minorities than Whites, is not diverse.</p>
<p>I applaud the few schools that did not once using the word "diversity" on their advertisements in the "diversity" issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education last fall. Almost every other university was just begging for a chance to show how committed to "diversity" they were. But those select few who refrained were the truly progressive institutions, for they understood that "diversity" is not the true factor.</p>
<p>Seersucker .. that last paragraph is another false analogy! I'm not going to start talking to Bush about my opinion on Deal or No Deal, I would talk to him about my views on political issues! I'm not going to start talking to a white supremacist about his favorite ice cream flavor, I'm going to ask him why he is a racist! Therefore, that last paragraph is really pointless.</p>
<p>On another note, diversity isn't going to solve all of our problems and make everyone love the U.S--that is not the goal of diversity, but that man makes it sound that way when he says "the US is now more diverse than before, but, is also more hated". </p>
<p>I can't really tell if you are against diversity, or just against any efforts towards diversity. The two are really very different.</p>
<p>I like the example of a civil rights debate somebody mentioned earlier. If you have different backgrounds, including ethnic backgrounds in a classroom setting, it makes for more lively and profitable discussion because you can get a broader scope of point of views.</p>
<p>We can't help that the OP's a white supremacist, obviously a lack of diversity in his own surroundings has caused him to have a warped perspective on the world, it could also just be his parents. </p>
<p>Theres no such thing as "diversity". Theirs just actual diversity where theirs a multitude of backgrounds including ethnic backgrounds (try as you might, you can't argue that a college with only white people, or even only asian or only black people is going to be more diverse then a good mix of each; there are certain viewpoints that you can only get from certain races)</p>
<p>and theres fake diversity, which is when you still have a homogenous environment, but you through in a couple african americans and latinos as "official ambassadors of their race". </p>
<p>Diversity of viewpoints is the main reason America is the power house its become today.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Diversity of viewpoints is the main reason America is the power house its become today.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not related completely, but this made me think of a time back in middle school civics. We watched a video about immigration that said the concept of America as a "melting pot" was incorrect. The video said the US was more like a "salad bowl," full of all different types of people.</p>
<p>I thought that video was really stupid. Look at immigrant's 2nd and 3rd generation kids. They are pretty much the same as the other American kids.</p>
<p>America is the power house it is today because our freedom initially attracted the best and brightest. Today, we can pay more than other countries, so we get the best scientists, etc. Why else do you think all the Asians are smart - the dumb ones aren't getting jobs over here.</p>
<p>that's one take on it, if you want to take power house literally.</p>
<p>what does it mean on cc when people say "troll" alert? i know it has nothing to do with this topic but i keep seeing it and i saw it on here. just wondering... feel free to ignore me as this does not pertain to the topic at hand.</p>
<p>"We are all fallible. All of the upper class owned slaves – I won’t defend Slavery, but back then they did not even believe black people were human. It’s a bad example, but you would to give dogs the same rights as you and I have? No. (And I am not comparing any ethnic group to dogs; I am simply pointing out the POV of the founding fathers.)"</p>
<p>Exactly! And in retrospect, the founding fathers seem completely wrong. Perhaps the founding fathers were wrong on diversity.</p>
<p>"Same as before. I’m not anti-progress."</p>
<p>I don't think that you are, but that man sure is using archaic ideals to push his point.</p>
<p>"I won’t debate this, but the US doesn’t need to be involved with the UN."</p>
<p>Your right! Clearly we are above them...</p>
<p>"The Japanese are now just as Western as Europe and the US. Sure we nuked them, but in doing so, we were able to abruptly stop the war and end further casualties for both sides."</p>
<p>That doesn't mean we weren't hated by them for it.</p>
<p>"I’m sure the Russian Jews, gypsies, gays, etc. (your diverse crowd) appreciated the US after we shut down Auschwitz, etc."</p>
<p>Yes they did, and luckily they were on the winning side. War has losers and war has winners. I'm not defending Japanese policy in WWII but in thier eyes they got shafted. The losing/oppressed side in a war is always bitter towards the victors. </p>
<p>"PS- I would love to debate this SOB"</p>
<p>Sorry, that was in regards to the speaker saying that he wished he had a diversity advocate to debate. It wasn't intended towards you.</p>
<p>"But, that is being intolerant! You should learn to appreciate and celebrate different viewpoints, right?"</p>
<p>Touche. I will finish his speech.</p>
<p>I believe the point Seersucker is trying to make is that diversity of ethnicity is not inherently beneficial. There's nothing wrong with diversity, or relating to a certain ethnic group. But there's not a whole lot of benefit acquired in forcing a workplace, a campus, or even a nation to "have more minorities." It's not inherently bad either, but I seriously ask anyone here, what is gained from forcing ethnic diversity where it doesn't naturally exist? Not diversity of opinion or thought. Simply ethnic diversity.</p>
<p>"Social Engineering"...interesting term, that. Nowadays, it seems a term most frequently bandied about by the (sometimes closeted, sometimes open) fans of the ever-tenacious White Supremacy movement, and muttered with a curl-of-the-lip when vehemently arguing against AA. I've always found it interesting that these same people never seem to find the term applicable to the widespread practice of forced segregation of whites and blacks in this country for hundreds of years (under weight of law), to the practice of institutional racism that determined that those of my ilk weren't "good enough" to sit in a classroom with white children, to the one that dictated that if you weren't a white male, you could forget about being considered for promotion to positions of respect and authority, no matter what your qualifications. </p>
<p>But I guess if the practice only assures your continued place at the top, and keeps the perceived "mud races" (and hormone-driven women) in their place far below your own, it's not really "social engineering", is it?</p>