1) When you have a distribution of people that is not representative of the general populace making decisions that affect the general populace, you increase the risk of society moving in a direction that the general populace does not agree with. This is undesirable. 2) STEM fields are very powerful, as are tech companies, as are marketing companies, and as are politics. The decisions made in these fields effects the general population. 3) From #1 and #2 we can infer that it is desirable for STEM companies, and companies like them, to increase the diversity of their workforce and in particular their higher levels of management. 4) Therefore, diversity in these areas is good for the general populace. 5) Hence, diversity is a strength.
Then the argument probably doesn't work, however it's hard to make the same counterpoint if we're talking about something like equal gender representation in STEM.
Austin Roberts
Diversity is indeed a strength. That's why the inbred have to go back
Liam Cruz
Diversity isn't the problem. Lowering your standards to meet a quota is
Gavin Kelly
the general populace are idiots
sage
Jace Bennett
Off the top of my head, that actually looks like a good reply. "Diversity is good but the means you suggest to achieve it do more harm than diversity will do good".
Aaron Myers
How does installing minority's into such fields in a disproportionate rate vs actual population help anything? Disproportionate representation and foreign influence in fields created and perfected by the host population will disrupt the natural development of said fields
Aaron Phillips
>How does installing minority's into such fields in a disproportionate rate vs actual population help anything? I never said anything about the rate of instalment.
>Disproportionate representation and foreign influence in fields created and perfected by the host population will disrupt the natural development of said fields I never suggested disproportionate representation.
Xavier Cox
One of the most frequent problems with STEM fields is that third worlders constantly lie about their qualifications. My dad works for a telecommunications company and gets dozens of resumes from Indians who have some dubious degree from a university no one's ever heard of before.
People should be hired based on how capable they are on doing their job. If a population is diverse enough, then it will be naturally reflected in the workforce. Hiring people based on what ethnicity they are and not how competent they are is going to ensure that STEM fields are going to stagnate, due to the mediocrity of the workforce behind it.
So, in this case, meme diversity enforced by SoCJus dipshits is not a strength. If enough meme diversity is introduced, then it may even be detrimental.
Elijah Stewart
You basically inferred in your first two statements exactly that. If it's not broke don't fix it. That's how things end up broken.
Brayden Watson
>3) From #1 and #2 we can infer that it is desirable for STEM companies, and companies like them, to increase the diversity of their workforce and in particular their higher levels of management. >4) Therefore, diversity in these areas is good for the general populace.
It's far better if the populace just isn't diverse in the first place.
Ian Campbell
>It's far better if the populace just isn't diverse in the first place. But it always will be. For example, you're (almost) always going to have a nearly 50-50 male/female split.
Eli Lopez
You seem to be conflating gender diversity with racial diversity.
Also it's a pretty fucking big leap to say "Non-representitive = bad. Therefore everything that is not 1:1 representative must be altered."
And the logical conclusion of that supposition is literally forcing people into and out of occupations as demographics change, which is ludicrous.
Ryan Turner
...
Aaron Williams
It could be if you allowed natural selection.
But if you try to equalize the outcomes achieved by diverse individuals...
Asher Hernandez
The root cause of the problem exists long before any hiring process you fucking cretin. The uncomfortable fact for is that at present, minorities are (statistically) not as good at these subjects because they're born into tougher situations / don't have the same opportunities and schooling that white kids do (source: go to any private school and look at the kids there, then do the same at some inner city public school). Tech companies shouldn't be forced to lower the bar to brush the real issue under the carpet. If they actually want to make a fucking difference then they should start with actually levelling the playing field rather than being racist in their hiring process (Inb4 minorities can't be racist yes they can)
Elijah Sanchez
Cont. using your shitty logic system:
1. All companies thus far have been run almost exclusively by white men.
2. Of these companies, some subset have been hugely successful.
3. From 1 and 2, we can infer (no we can't) that only white men should be allowed to run big tech companies.
4. Racial purity is a strength.
Grayson Adams
Also there are a slew of other negative factors to consider.
> Depending on the Culture, Diversity can create Cultural Conflict. > Increased Gender Diversity breeds fraternization which saps productivity. > Mandated Diversity leads to resentment from those displaced.
And that's just off the top of my dome. We need to basically subdivide and specifically examine and identify the pros and cons of multiple different styles of Diversity (Intellectual, Political, Cultural, Gendered, Sexual) and break it down further to see truly where the benefits are derived from.
World is shades of grey. "Diversity is our Strength" is such a huge, overarching supposition, with so many knock on effects that really haven't been examined in any depth for fear of being disproven.
Christian Thompson
Diversity is the opposite of unity. Unity is strength. Be told, you plantpot.
What we should have learned from the 2nd world war is that different ethnic and religious groups are in a constant state of rivalry and competition. Instead we embraced multiculturalism, which is nothing more than a suicide cult for an ethnic groups survival.
Take the US, for example. Up until 1965 the population of the US was 93% white. Since 1965, the white population has shrunk to below 55% and will continue to shrink exponentially, since lower IQ populations tend to have lots of children given available resources (food, shelter, money) allow for it. The opposite is true for high IQ populations who tend to have fewer children as wealth increases because they would prefer to focus on careers than having children.
This situation has a spiralling effect as the productive, high IQ population is forced to work overtime under increasingly hostile conditions (higher crime rates, deteriorating healthcare system, worsening schools, and general lower quality of life caused by living in 'vibrant' ethnically diverse neighbourhoods) to pay taxes for the lower IQ populations so they don't riot/loot/commit crimes en masse.
Even if we wanted to, there's very little we could do about it at this stage. Undoing years of cultural Marxist brainwashing wouldn't even be possible, even if there was the political will. We're now going into a 'multicultural mode' and jews are going to be resented because of their leading role. But without that leading role, Europe will not survive.
David Rogers
>Mixing cultures incompatible with each other and causing a clash equals strength
Good job, fucktard. You probably live in a all white, crime-free neighborhood, don't you?
But you know what? I agree. You should go live in Africa or any of those shitty arab countries, inject them with some "diversity". I'm sure they'll appreciate your enrichment,
James Ramirez
If diversity is our strength, then why do all the natives in diverse areas vote for limiting diversity? US South is vehemently racist because of their "diversity", regions in France that have more Muslims voted for Le Pen (excluding Paris), the only ones wanting more diversity are natives who live in gated communities where they don't have to come into contact with the aliens they let in. The natives who come into contact with "diversity" are vehemently anti-diversity.
Nolan Watson
This. Most liberals live in cushy white communities and just choose the ideology that makes them feel best about themselves and gives them a sense of moral superiority.
