It doesn't even make sense on face value alone.

If a strength is measured by who you can fit into it while taking ANYTHING outside of how good/strong/capable they are at the thing they are supposed to measure up against others with, it defeats the entire premise.

All anyone has to do in that scenario is to put the actual 'strong' person against them, and they win.

Diversity as an ethos is to set yourself up for failure against anyone who refuses to be held back.

Who wins in this scenario 100 times out of 100?


Look at us..we have the most diverse and inclusive team!

We have the absolute best people in their positions, on our team.

It's just like the LGBTBBQROFL crowd. It started with 'we just want to be seen as equals' and turned into failure being forced down everyone's' throats because we traded success for feeling good about being failures.

Either I’ve been drinking, or you have, because I’ve read this post three times and still don’t follow.

Probably both of us.

So he basically has schrodinger’s username?

"Africa has a high prevalence of civil wars and this is commonly attributed to the ethnic diversity of its countries. This inference seems self-evident to many, given that African rebel movements almost always are ethnically defined. Ethnic identities and hatred are thus seen as the cause of violent conflict."

https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/279191468768305499/pdf/28130.pdf


"A massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam—famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement—has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings."

https://wcfia.harvard.edu/publications/downside-diversity

The problem is that it's selective diversity, no different than any other form of fascism.  If you don't think or believe in a certain, diverse way, you're the problem.

My other issue is that this modern diversity has no qualifiers.  I've always valued others' opinions and points of view, especially from those who were different than me.  However, we had a baseline unity of effort and mission and I valued them because of their performance, proven competence, work ethic, and developed trust. Diversity isn't a bad thing, but it's been defined as something completely different and demanded without qualification.

ROCK6

Natural diversity is not a bad thing.  Most of the time, it's a good thing.  And mankind is heterogenous and tends towards diversity naturally.  Men are varied in many ways, and this can lead to different ideas, approaches, aesthetic variety, and more, which tend to be to the benefit of the whole.  It also allows men to fill various roles in society based on various factors that make them unique individuals.  It can also be beautiful to have a variety within a country, one that is organic to it, or perhaps had some artificial origins, but ultimately followed a similar process.  Of course, some elements that are included can be bad, and sometimes it is a big enough issue that it affects the country; diversity of certain types is also vulnerable to exploitation by radical ideologies (nationalism is an old example, which helped to tear ethnically diverse Western countries apart), but on the whole it is largely a good thing.

Sameness is what drives the Left.  Some want total sameness, some want sameness in some respects, but not all.  But making everyone the same is what they tend to want.  They also tend towards identitarianism, which can be a goal or a tool to other ends.  The reality is that the Left doesn't actually want true diversity, despite modern appearances.

"Diversity and inclusion" is just a euphemism for a tactic to tear down institutions that stand in their way on their path to making us all the same in the end.  In their way is traditional Western civilization (including Christianity).  It stands for pretty much everything they oppose, and vice versa.  They embrace people who have moral failings or proclivities that clash with traditional Western moral standards; they embrace cultures that are not very compatible with the civilization or which have grievances against it; they create wedges, sometimes with some basis in legitimate historical grievances, but often fabrications, that allow them to pit classes of persons against Western civilization, though they are a part of it.  They also see that many of these demographics will vote their way, and wish to increase their power and influence, which can be accomplished by replacing classes less favorable with such persons.  It becomes in their interests to promote this artificial "diversity" in order to tear down that which stands in their way of creating their utopia which is not nearly so diverse.  It allows them to poison institutions which have stood resistant to other measures to subvert, coopt, or destroy them.  

The goal isn't diversity or inclusion (they can be very exclusive of everything that does not conform to their ideology or will).  The goal is the destruction of Western civilization, to remove the biggest obstacle within the West to their goal of making everyone equal, of making everyone the same.

Sometimes the Right goes too far into nativism, and some elements can become enamored with nationalism, but this is an overreaction to division and discord being created by the Left (and sometimes unintentionally by circumstances).  Others are too focused in priorities, at the expense of everything else and especially anything they perceive as a threat to their singular interest; some libertarians are good examples of this.  The traditional Right recognizes the need, even in a naturally diverse country, to have a common purpose, a broad civilizational commonality, and ties that bind various groups and interests into a single community.  The dignity and worth of the individual, as well as the diversity of a community or society, does not detract from a need to serve the commonweal as well.  It is what makes for a good civilization.  The Left knows this (and what is good it considers bad, and vice versa), which is why it seeks to tear those bonds asunder, and to pit everyone against one another, in the name of the opposite (the Left is great at deception and promotion of clear but false ideas).  The absence of these bonds allows them to mold society as they will it, or at least to try, even if it goes against the laws of nature (and is thus impossible to truly fulfill) and involves great death and destruction; they will use what they gain with the division they create, and the destruction they wreak, to try and level the mountains to fill the valleys, at great cost to mankind.

Diversity and inclusion being strength is as euphemistic and dishonest as the famous sayings and institutional names from 1984.  It is not strength, not what they mean by it, anyways.  It consists of the seeds of weakness, aiming to destroy what those of us on the other side hold dear, and in a way that sounds too positive for opposition to be considered anything but mean-spirited or immoral by many susceptible to this sort of idea.

Ethnic diversity of the region is not the problem.  Nationalism and tribalism, combined with being on a much lower civilizational level (barbaric, or barely a step or two above it), is the problem.

Actually, that study isn’t new; it was published in 2007.  I don’t believe there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that kind of truth would see the light of day in America now, much less from Harvard.

My water park.

Strange, considering that this country is more diverse and inclusive than it has ever been and at the same time we're probably at the weakest in the nations history.

I should have put both of those in quotes, I just quoted the main points of both articles.

Tribalism is a human trait, which is why diversity is a weakness.

Not finding fault with you, just whining about the sorry state of scholarship in 2022 America.

Not a strength at all.

It is just a feels good.

The summary of the Harvard study does not really highlight racial diversity.

The diversity most discussed is industry training diversity, education, gender.

The countries surveyed are Wester European countries, China and India and Brazil.  There's a conspicuous lack of African, Middle Eastern, or other countries represented where work culture is weak.

It's easy in countries like China and India to see that companies with both native people and expert foreign employees will bring value to a company over straight native talent companies.  Likewise in the US and Western Europe, the prevalence of strong work ethic nationalities mixed with the majority nationality also would be strong.  

It would be very interesting to see the actual metric of diversity, i.e. exactly what diversity they are talking about when they say "diversity is our strength".

Cultures and people with strong work ethics > Diversity for the sake of diversity.

The Lazy River has never been lazier.

My company has started added "of thought" to the diversity programs.

There is hope.

Precisely.

Let one of these diversity clowns have there house catch on fire or get a DUI and they'll be SCREAMING  for the best of the best to come to their aid.

The same people pushing this here will tell you that all the violence in the Middle East is the result of Britain drawing borders that produced states with too much ethnic and cultural diversity.

Diversity is strength only when it can be used to weaken the West.

The pole results sickitate me...

People assume racial diversity equals diversity of thought. Okay, yes but how relevant is that thought to the job? If a guy grows up in a village outside of Bombay then comes to the USA and gets his degree and is a software engineer, then any problem he faces in coding is going to be addressed from his years of job experience, not his cultural experience.

Diversity is all about division, the opposite of inclusion.

…Divided we fall.

See my avatar.

Mandated inclusion/diversity/EEO/affirmative action discourages the most capable from exerting the effort that is necessary to excel.

If every child gets a trophy, what's the point in pushing yourself?

Strong solutions are diverse and inclusive in that they can withstand a wide variety of inputs.

That is quite different from claiming those inputs are the source of strength.

There is no diversity of thought. They push for everyone to think like them which is the irony of the diversity bullshit to have "different perspectives" except when you don't agree with their side.

Diversity is only a strength in conditions of unity. In any other condition it is inherent weakness

E Pluribus Unum has proven to be the most misunderstood phrase since the second amendment.

In theory...yes.  Differing opinions and viewpoints from multiple frames of reference can lead to solving problems in ways one i individual may not be able to do.

In practice, its just a way to sound woke.

I doubt a nuanced discussion is possible, but group diversity has positive and negative aspects. It may not be desirable, depending on the goal of the group. In general, the military does not benefit from diversity, but some organizations within the military would.
There have been studies on this stuff in the past, but no researcher would dare breach this topic today.

It’s worse than “a way to sound woke”. It’s a points system, look at how our media is. Watch a TV ad or show, check out social media ads… you’d think everyone is a minority, gay/trans, or a gay/trans minority, with a smattering of white women thrown in for them to be married to.

Edit: and I know this post comes off as “angry white guy” but it actually isn’t. I truly do value what “e pluribus unum” was supposed to mean: One from many. We are all Americans, we need to come together for the greater good… let’s fix our American problems. Let’s get Americans on the moon again, and Americans on Mars. Wokeness just needing to see “representation” everywhere. It’s recursive and divisive. And ultimately another way for the communists/globalists to keep us littles bickering.

If diversity and multiculturalism were good for America, the Right would support them, not the Left.
The politically incorrect truth is, diversity almost always hurts white Westerners. Period.
It's essentially punishment for their success.

This is why it is so important to protect one's culture, which we utterly failed to do. And now, we are paying the price for that.

Yeah, "many" white, Western, European, Christians.

However, when he comes to America to work, he brings his culture with him.
This is why economics is only one element of the immigration question that needs to be addressed.

Wasn't all that long ago that those same folks were screaming that "we're all the same" and "one race, the human race".
I guess that wasn't working.

lol

Wrong!

The strongest, hardest, most durable things on earth are mostly comprised of homogenous components with the least number of impurities. Think steels, diamonds, etc.

Now, adding something different to the mix for a purpose can be a good thing. But just throwing something in the mix because some doofus told you to will more than likely end up weakening both the original component and the added component.

That's the current goal though, right.

Divide, distract, and conquer.

Best person for the job in all things.  

I'm no dummy, but there are a LOT of smarter people than me.  Those brainiacs are at a whole different level but can be ignorant of other things, even common day to day type stuff that most of us take for granted.  

There are folks that are also dumb as a stump but are strong and follow direction.  The world needs ditch diggers too.

A person's ability is all that matters.  Race or gender (xx or xy, there are only two) should NEVER be a factor.  

Diversity is a huge strength if everyone believes in a common goal.

Diversity of strengths, is strength.

Inclusion of strengths, is strength.


The forced "inclusion" of "diverse" weaknesses, in the name of "diversity and inclusion" of meaningless appearances, is weakness.


A black tranny, a white non-binary, and a gay Latino walk into a bar, but none of them have money, or any skills or items to trade.... How "strong" are they as a result of their diversity?

Like all good lies, it has some truth to it. Diversity of thought, experience, ideology, can be good.

However, fake diversity as pushed by the left, where it’s all leftists with a makeup of every color of the rainbow and an eclectic assortment of mental Illness does not a diversity make.

Does Ketanji add “diversity” to the court? Kind of. I wasn’t aware of any pedo advocates before her. Ok, bad example. But leftists would say because she’s a “black woman” with black woman experiences. But in reality she’s a pedo loving leftist with pedo loving leftist experiences.

Second post nailed it. America no longer has commonality for the most part. Diversity and inclusion efforts accelerated the decline.

some liberal democracies are allowed to have bigly walls, closed borders and strict abortion laws

It’s a lie

the left: multicultural/multiethnic societies in the gLoBaL sOuTh face issues due to being forced to live together by arbitrarily drawn boundaries courtesy of hecking dead old white men

also the left: more multiculturalism in the West is the solution