So I'm having a lecture tomorrow on how advantageous (ethnic and cultural) diversity is to teams in the workplace. I'm ideologically completely against (non-white) ethnic diversity, but I need ammo to counter the points that will be brought up tomorrow. I plan on disturbing the lecture as much as I can.
Please help me find good sources on why diversity is bad. Post pictures, links, anything. Thanks, user.
what studies even say that diversity is the shit? just read those and do a critique of them.
like when they were done in the USA say it doesnt apply to sweden
when it was done in big corps say it doesnt apply to small and medium businesses
and how exactly was "diversity" defined, how was it measured?
thats how i would do that, pretty much sow the seeds of doubt without actually having to produce something on my own.
Don't do that shit bro. Don't reveal your power level, you're gonna get fired.
Act dumb, ask questions, let them reach racist conclusions.
Example:
"What should we do when we can't propperly communicate?"
or
"What holidays will we take, christian, or that of other cultures, maybe we should all have both" (Bad goy, that would cost us profit)
Exactly.
Offer as much dissent as you can.
What points are they going to bring up? Honestly want to know since i've never heard anyone be able to defend it.
Thanks
>what studies even say that diversity is the shit? just read those and do a critique of them.
Good thinking. The lecturer doesn't list sources but just lists claims that diversity is good for everything.
Thanks for the concern. I'm at uni, and I have made my view on the matter clear before. I just can't let these claims go unchallenged.
Don't take the bait, it is not worth it. You won't redpill anyone, you'll just stand out as the autistic contrarian fuck you are and possibly get in trouble.
If you want to be cheeky, just come up with the cheesiest arguments for diversity, the kind that everybody knows is bullshit.
"Why diversity? Effectiveness, creativity, competitiveness, profitability, image, democracy, ethics, humanitarian reasons, judicial reasons"
>Good thinking. The lecturer doesn't list sources but just lists claims that diversity is good for everything.
Ask them why Japan doesn't do it then? And the niggers they have are criminals and are the only travel warning agaist Japan.
Japan is the key to winning any diversity debate.
Is this really a hill you want to die on in a pointless class? Isn't arguing against this, social suicide in Swedistan?
>help me find evidence to support my prejudice
>not basing your opinions on evidence, but basing what evidence you listen to on your opinions.
Huh, the alt-right sure is the bastion of European enlightenment.
If minorities offer different perspectives just because they're minorities, does this mean that the people in minority groups are the same and we can treat them as one homogeneous mass?
It's the same shit with the line about women:
>"Women all think alike" = sexist
vs.
>"We need women on board because they offer a different perspective" = progressive
It can't be both.
Either judge people individually (which means diversity is bunk) or judge people on the colour of their skin, culture etc. which means there is something unique about that racial/cultural trait which means you can stereotype or make excuses for racial profiling, for example.
>If you want to be cheeky, just come up with the cheesiest arguments for diversity, the kind that everybody knows is bullshit.
underrated
>Yes goy, dont voice you opinion.
>Just let them bend you over
Silly user, you must learn the ways of doublethink
There have been a lot of famous studies showing that the more 'diverse' a community the more distrust, crime, and social decay there is. Robert Putnam was a liberal prof that did a bunch of studies into diverse communities and came away finding mostly negative outcomes impacted these places.
archive.boston.com
Here's an article that covers the issue.
Ham it up. Say how awesome it is to :
Be able to poach talent to work for cheap in your country instead of developing their own.
How it saves you the trouble of training your own people.
How immigration irreversibly transforms your native society with different people, values and cultures, allowing you to experience algeria, somalia, iraq, pakistan and afghanistan without traveling.
So am I just supposed to sit and listen to this ideological bullshit? Let people hear the usual points unchallenged and get marinated in this nonsense?
Good point.
Yes. Yes.
Thanks.
Important angle, thank you.
Seems like an attempt to "rule" over the employees. Most of these things listed mainly profit the employer so them telling you that these things are good is really weird and a tiny bit distressing. It's the exact same tactic employed by our governments. "Dwindling birthrates is why we need more foreigners." and other crap like that.
...
Samuel Hundtington: Clash of civilizations
Best book if you want critique for diversity in uni, even some of our profs cite it.
Bump ,
Good picture, fixed it a little.
Looking into it, thanks.
Stress to them how it drains poorer, more developing countries, of their most creative and innovative minds, causing massive brain drain and keeping their respective nations barren of new ideas and progress, whilst simultaneously bringing success within the host economy.
This explains it well.
I always thought this video was good to show normies
You are my hjälte right now.
>i'm going to disrupt a workplace lecture about race
no you're not
>We shpull build our teams and positions based on merit if we want to stay competitive and innovative.
>but user, why?
>because "diversity" seems to only mean skin color and maybe culture in this case. Aside from a strong work ethic which has nothing to do with "diversity", culture and skin are not a factor that will increase our competitiveness, win contracts, or increase profits.
These are also good points.
Dialectic fallacy.
What is merit? How do you know who is going to be good at a job, when what the job should be determined by who is doing it?
It is the Platonic fallacy that there is an ideal form. The division of labor is relative to the production outcome, not some Platonic form of the structure that made it.
Conclusion: It is the manager’s job to divide the labor with respect to the product, not fill the position of the a priori, god determined divided labor absent the products outcome.
This is a recursion between employee and what they do, not a set best division independent of the products ability to meet the customer's expectation in the benefits of owning the product.
This is the only guide you will ever need.