Yes, exactly! These guys didn't start out by talking about genocide, either! They just wanted people to know that there are some instances where diversity can be a hindrance. Just like you want people to know!
Once again, those Wikipedia articles are highly recommended reading.
First of all you're making the mistake that "diversity" is always short for "racial diversity". The poster I was replying to make the blanket statement "diversity always improves a system". Well no, not always. And I wasn't even referring to race in my counter-argument. You of course brought up Nazis, the old "I have nothing good to come back at you with so... YOU'RE TALKING LIKE A NAZI!!!!" bit.
The main example I pointed out is American politics. There is quite a bit of diversity of opinion and that makes it far more difficult to reach a consensus about a particular issue than you'll find in e.g., European and Asian countries, which have far more homogeneous populations (and by extension, far more homogeneous political/social opinion). As a result, the speed with which progressive policies can be implemented in America ...lags... our European brethren, to put it lightly.
No, I wasn't making that mistake at all. I was talking about racial diversity because YOU were talking about racial diversity, pointing to the Swedes as an example of an ethnically homogenous culture that is able to Get Things Done due presumably to the fact that most folks there are blonde. (Side note: if you'd like a meatier comment to respond to, there's always the parent's that you're ignoring: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8368839)
I pointed out that you were talking like a Nazi because, in this instance, you were talking like a Nazi. Do I think you secretly harbor a desire to wipe out an ethnicity via genocide? Nope. Do I think that criticizing ethnic diversity as standing in the way of progress sounds suspiciously fascist? Why yes, yes I do!
Identity politics has no doubt hamstrung the American left, but that has had little to do with your cited example of the failure to implement a nationalized healthcare system. Diversity increases viewpoints, more viewpoints invite stronger debate. Does less debate lead to better outcomes, or faster outcomes? Which is preferable?
Comments
Oh boy, you went there. No one is talking about genocide to eliminate diversity, just that there are instances where diversity can be a hindrance.
Yes, exactly! These guys didn't start out by talking about genocide, either! They just wanted people to know that there are some instances where diversity can be a hindrance. Just like you want people to know!
Once again, those Wikipedia articles are highly recommended reading.
First of all you're making the mistake that "diversity" is always short for "racial diversity". The poster I was replying to make the blanket statement "diversity always improves a system". Well no, not always. And I wasn't even referring to race in my counter-argument. You of course brought up Nazis, the old "I have nothing good to come back at you with so... YOU'RE TALKING LIKE A NAZI!!!!" bit.
The main example I pointed out is American politics. There is quite a bit of diversity of opinion and that makes it far more difficult to reach a consensus about a particular issue than you'll find in e.g., European and Asian countries, which have far more homogeneous populations (and by extension, far more homogeneous political/social opinion). As a result, the speed with which progressive policies can be implemented in America ...lags... our European brethren, to put it lightly.
No, I wasn't making that mistake at all. I was talking about racial diversity because YOU were talking about racial diversity, pointing to the Swedes as an example of an ethnically homogenous culture that is able to Get Things Done due presumably to the fact that most folks there are blonde. (Side note: if you'd like a meatier comment to respond to, there's always the parent's that you're ignoring: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8368839)
I pointed out that you were talking like a Nazi because, in this instance, you were talking like a Nazi. Do I think you secretly harbor a desire to wipe out an ethnicity via genocide? Nope. Do I think that criticizing ethnic diversity as standing in the way of progress sounds suspiciously fascist? Why yes, yes I do!
Identity politics has no doubt hamstrung the American left, but that has had little to do with your cited example of the failure to implement a nationalized healthcare system. Diversity increases viewpoints, more viewpoints invite stronger debate. Does less debate lead to better outcomes, or faster outcomes? Which is preferable?