What does /pol think about diversity?

What does /pol think about diversity?

Other urls found in this thread:

blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/03/13/gender-quotas-and-the-crisis-of-the-mediocre-man/
independent.co.uk/news/business/news/workplace-gender-quotas-incompetence-efficiency-business-organisations-london-school-economics-lse-a7797061.html
heritage.org/2017-index-culture-and-opportunity/high-student-loan-debt-threatens-upward-mobility
syruptrap.ca/2014/11/coyote-in-debt-21000-after-wandering-through-university/
iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Sanandajinima-interactive.pdf

>we are all equal
>we need more diversity
nigga, wat?

>competent women replaced mediocre men.
Yes, that was how the system was before quotas. Now you are replacing mediocre men with mediocre women and abyssimal niggers.

I think its just code for "less white people" despite only being pushed in white countries.
I also think the yanks are retarded for not stamping this shit out sooner, given how much they bang on about "muh guns" "muh constitution" etc etc, and then let actual literal commies invade their education and political systems.

But yeah we're all fucked, not just the yanks tbhm8.

I have trouble understanding her logic.

Diversity killed my nation

>read the (((studies)))

Diversity is good. Taking the best aspects of foreign cultures to apply to our own is how the Western world became successful.

Leftist diversity of immigrating blacks and Muslims for the sake of being blacks and Muslims into our country is fucking retarded and suicidal.

Not our strength. Different rules for different groups of people tend to piss everyone off.

I legitimately have no problems with organic diversity. People coming to our country, working hard, reaching for the sky, and trying to blend their old culture with our new one. What I have a problem with is forced diversity through quotas or mass immigration with no oversight.

>Diversity is good.
>I legitimately have no problems with organic diversity.

>flag
the absolute fucking state of you cunts, I swear.

>resisters are likely mediocre

sources required

The diversity she envisions does not manifest within truly meritocratic systems simply because the races and the genders are not equal, that's why we need oppressive communist style "diversity" laws, quotas and policies to ensure women, niggers and other substandard rabble can compete. Nobody is opposed to everybody competing on an equal footing. That is the very thing "progressives" wish to destroy, because a level playing field produces uncomfortable results, which they then attribute to oppression or discrimination despite there being no evidence for it because they cannot bring themselves to question that fundamental yet fallacious tenant of their belief structure, that everyone is equal.

diversity = everyone except wypipo

do you agree with mr karnstein

i think diversity of thought is more important than skin color. A rich black kid from the hamptons and a rich white kid from the hamptons is not diverse at all. A rich black kid from the hamptons and a middle class black from wherever is more diverse

My bartender last night said that the lord of the rings should have had more diversity. She was some sort of monstruo or creatura. I didn't say anything really except "I guess its up to the director". Never actually heard someone say some insane shit like that before though

You leave with the rest of the niggers when the ethnostate happens

What? Can you name something specific? Exclude things that are inventions like the chinese gun powder.

goddamit PoX at it again

There was a study done on diversity in the workplace. I think this study was done in Germany but i don't remeber the name of which school that conducted this study but the results were terrible and diversity had a bad meffect on both productivity and the atmosphere.

Diversity in of itself isn't necessary in any economic force what is necessary is the appropriate skills to drive the economy and ensuring such skills are passed down. I view diversity as the modern age slavery of poor people which is both immoral and unjustified. Populism isn't necessary for a driven economic force either. What is necessary is simply the drive any man or woman has to achieve great economic success within their own measures and capacities. Diversity from a progressive standpoint enables cheaper labor into the workforce which replaces the common rabble low end scum of the current economic work force with hoards of new working bodies.

Other than cheap labor, there is no need for diversity. You can import food. But if you import culture from people who will never give it up you are simply asking them to build micronations within your own nation which is never actually inclusive.

blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/03/13/gender-quotas-and-the-crisis-of-the-mediocre-man/

here's the publication she's referring to

independent.co.uk/news/business/news/workplace-gender-quotas-incompetence-efficiency-business-organisations-london-school-economics-lse-a7797061.html

...

>competent women

There is zero evidence that racial or ethnic diversity improves performance. None

Workplace gender quotas weed out incompetent men and make businesses more efficient, study finds
The research counters one of the key arguments often put forward against the introduction of minimum quotas to promote equality: that such targets are unmeritocratic

First of all, I said racial and ethnic diversity, not gender diversity. Second of all, the study you reference is fucking retarded. The entire basis of their claim is that the average personal income of male politicians in Sweden specifically went up a whopping 3 percentage points over several years following introduction of gender quotas in the political candidacy system. That has nothing to do with companies, nor even anything to do with the government. How does personal income indicate political effectiveness? How does a 3% rise over 3 years mean anything? Why is it not discussed that the average income of female Swedish politicians went DOWN?

>what think of udiversity
It’s a trap and it saddles its victims with crippling debt. It’s essentially a racket devised by marxists for marxists to infiltrate all the levers of power for the end goal of complete destruction of all that is good in the world. Also its secondary function is to pay for Barney Spanders summer home. Instead, reject it. Build and fix your own shit.
heritage.org/2017-index-culture-and-opportunity/high-student-loan-debt-threatens-upward-mobility
syruptrap.ca/2014/11/coyote-in-debt-21000-after-wandering-through-university/

> Swedish study on Swedish politicians
> Since the gender quotas Sweden has been flooded with third world savages
> Sexual violence has exploded
> Gang warfare involving hand grenades and assault rifles on formally peaceful streets

Gender quotas in politics sure worked out there. Future civilizations will use Sweden as an allegory for what happens when you give women power.

Columbia Exchange between the Americas and Europe permanently altered the diets of each.
Economics sees a mix of Capitalist and Socialist economies in most countries of the world. Communist countries that adopted Capitalist ideals are arguably better and those Northern Europe countries that adopted Socialist policies appear to be making it work.

It's ok though - the indians are going to get their own justice system, courtesy of trudeau.
They need one.
Ours fails them because they can't stop committing crime - so the liberal government will put one in place that doesn't punish them for their natural proclivities.

>and those Northern Europe countries that adopted Socialist policies appear to be making it work.
They would be better off without

This is a prime example of why I have stopped hiring women for my team. Female resume comes in, I make all the appropriate noises about interviewing her, but she doesn't stand a fucking chance.
Women just aren't worth the risk anymore.

I said appear but I'll assume you know more about it than I do.

Diversity = white genocide

A common criticism against gender quotas is that they are anathema to meritocratic principles. This research on Sweden shows that the opposite can be true: Quotas actually increased the competence of politicians by leading to the displacement of mediocre men whether as candidates or leaders. The results may also be relevant for judging gender quotas in business.

More than 100 countries have a gender quota of some form or another in their political system (www.quotaproject.org). While accepting that they lean against underlying biases in gender representation, many opponents argue that such quotas offend meritocratic principles: women elected on the back of quotas need not be the most qualified and may displace qualified men. It would be nice to resolve these debates with hard evidence. However, relatively little is known about the impact of quotas on the competence of elected candidates – whether women or men.

Our study provides a unique window on quotas and, at the same time, pushes forward the measurement of competence in political selection. It uses the fact that, in 1993, Sweden’s Social Democratic party voluntarily introduced a strict gender quota for its candidates. In internal discussions of the reform, the party’s Women’s branch observed that some men were more critical than others. The quota became known colloquially as the “Crisis of the Mediocre Man,” since the incompetent men had the most to fear from an influx of women into politics.

Beyond the obvious point that the quota would give fewer positions to men, quotas can have strategic effects on political selection. Mediocre leaders have a strong incentive to surround themselves with mediocre followers, so as to bolster their chances of remaining in power. A less acknowledged role of quotas is to create a threat to such cozy arrangements. It is this idea that our research on Sweden has investigated. Our main finding is that gender quotas increase the competence of the political class in general, and among men in particular. Moreover, quotas are indeed bad news for mediocre male leaders who tend to be forced out.

Our research asks what happened when the central party organisation of the Social Democratic party imposed the quota on 285 local (municipal) political parties from the 1994 election and forward. Sweden has a strict party-list system where candidates for local council are elected in rank order. The quota mandated that the ballot be “zipped”, alternating male and female names throughout the list. Since a party’s elected representatives are counted from the top of the ballot, such zipping ensures a 50-50 balance in the proportion of men and women (or close to that for odd numbers of elected). On average, the proportion of elected women increased by 10 percentage points. But the starting point differed a great deal. Some localities were already near gender parity and not much affected by the reform. Others had low shares of women and saw a dramatic effect. Our study exploits this large variation.

The study also takes advantage of unique data to put forward a new way of gauging competence. Existing research has relied mostly on education levels. But our measure of competence relies on a comparison of the private incomes across people with the same education, occupation, age, and residence in the same geographical region (members of municipal councils in Sweden typically keep their private job). A competent politician, we argue, is a person who makes more than the median amongst politicians with similar characteristics. Remarkably, this competence measure is closely correlated with results from enlistments tests of the intelligence and leadership capacity of those who did military service. It is also related to measures of political success and the quality of service delivery.

Using our measure of competence, we find strong evidence of cozy arrangements prior to the quota, with mediocre leaders selecting mediocre followers. So what happened after the quota?

Within each local party, we compare the proportion of competent politicians in elections after the quota to the 1991 level. The figure below show some striking results. The left panel illustrates our estimates for politicians of both genders with black dots showing the change in the proportion of competent representatives in a party which is forced to increase their share of women (by 100 percentage points). The right panel splits the results by men and women (blue dots for men and pink dots for women). It shows distinctly that the average competence of male politicians increased in the places where the quota had a larger impact, and that the effect is concentrated to the three elections following the quota. On average, a higher female representation by 10 percentage points raised the proportion of competent men by 3 percentage points! For the competence of women, we observe little discernible effect.

Subdividing the men into leaders and followers reveals another interesting finding; there is clear evidence of a reduction in the proportion of male leaders (those at the top of the ballot) with mediocre competence. This suggests that quotas work in part by shifting incentives in the composing party ballots. Mediocre leaders are either kicked out or resign in the wake of more gender parity. Because new leaders – on average – are more competent, they feel less threatened by selecting more able candidates, which starts a virtuous circle of higher competence.

While we have focused on politics, the results may also be relevant for judging gender quotas in other organisations. Quotas for company boards currently exist in roughly ten countries and are on the agenda of various countries, as well as in the European Union. Arguably, analysing the impacts of board quotas is more complex than for politics. The policies often have long implementation periods as well as “pre-announced” plans or warnings. There are also ways around the rules, such as delisting from the stock market. These factors make it difficult to identify who precisely is affected by the change and who to compare them with. Nevertheless, some lessons from political parties could still apply. Many firms have a history of male-dominated leadership and are sometimes accused of having “locker-room” mentalities and cozy selection rules. These reinforce the selection of men, and leaders may feel comfortable being surrounded by non-threatening mediocrity. Just as in politics, therefore, a quota has the potential to undercut the dominance of a mediocre elite.

We need to take Alberta and BC then move north, the feather Indians are fine, the pajeets and chinks must be regulated heavily 2 kids per family, 1 boy only

Quit spamming you fucking dipshit, I already explained why this "study" is bunk

you're not the only person on this board

And? All the more reason for you to not spam your unsubstantiated feminist drivel. You already linked it, and didn't even do so with an archive link because you're a faggot.

>the pajeets and chinks must be regulated heavily
>burned where they stand
agreed

>woman can use logic

I'm completely in favor of diversity, but when you mix all the people together you kill diversity not create it.
I think every people on the planet deserves a place including white people.

Nah you're replacing competent men with mediocre women and niggers to fulfill quotas

>Karn(((stein)))

Good man, this is the proper tactic

the main issue is that judging the "competence" of a politician is a very subjective idea, and everyone will have a different idea of what it should be

Of course if it's some jewish media publication you can be sure the criteria used to judge competence are not what any sane person would think up

...

All niggers must die

In this case it was average personal income of the politicians. Which for men went up about 3%, and went down for women. From this single scrap of data they claim, "Diversity quotas weed out incompetancy"

It destroys nations.

diversity is ok
diversity for the sake of diversity is not ok
forced diversity is very not ok

Feminist policy focusing on giving minorities and women more freedom than white men tends to backfire, because it promotes inadequacy and ineptitude within those pandered groups. In a true meritocracy your skin color or gender should not be a factor as long as you can do your job well. Gender- or race quotas and similar policies go directly against that and thus make things worse when companies hire women or niggers.

My boss does the same

>diversity is obviously superior because I said so.
>anyone who resists it is inferior because I said so.
Remember Sup Forums, never trust someone who approves of quotas or welfare in any way, especially if both.

>I have an argument
>Let's assume this one thing is fact without proof
>I'm going to base my entire argument on this assumed fact
>"Can you explain why this is fact?"
>Go read about it

I've tried talking to friends and waking people up but there is something in the food and the water, they are zombies. Barely even sentient, and I mean that quite literally.

El golem de las americas

Someone post that article about percent of female workers and business success

Guys up your immigration laws make em strict or find a president like trump

It's so hard to tell if they know they are replicating 1930s soviet union or if they are just an advanced AI program.

Read about Article 58 in the USSR, especially the way Solzhenitsyn describes it. It's a psycho leftist wet dream and they are attempting to enforce it socially here.

this twitter faggot obviously doesn't know about the shit that went down in Aus and the blind hiring ending up with mostly white men because they were strict about getting the most qualified

Diversity of European cultures especially NW European cultures is pretty good tbhfamb

all other diversity is terrible

shes describing meritocracy but then attributing that to gender quotas. Fucking retarded

If it's better for business, let business decide what to do, not activists.

>Competence was measured by comparing the private incomes across people with the same education, occupation, age, and residence in the same geographical region. Those with higher incomes were deemed more competent.

what the fuck?

So gender quotas are meritocratic? They literally work based on gender, which is not a merit.

>A common criticism against gender quotas is that they are anathema to meritocratic principles.
>This research on Sweden shows that the opposite can be true: Quotas actually increased the competence.

If you hire only white men, and they work hard because they like when no niggers or whamen are around - this can lead to increase in competence too. But is it meritocratic? I think not.

>Those with higher incomes were deemed more competent.

They officially proved that gender gap is not an issue.

Availing competent women to positions held by mediocre men will obviously raise competence levels, but in no industry in Europe or America are such positions not available to women. In most cases the opposite is true, women are shoehorned into positions they arent qualified for. Even if there were cases of discrimination, it wouldnt lead to equal representation. furthermore, the study is useless and doesnt even prove what it claims to.

did you read the study? all their conclusions derive from a quota in a Swedish political party from 25 years ago. not business.

>the average income of female Swedish politicians went DOWN
Source?

>Northern Europe countries that adopted Socialist policies appear to be making it work.

wrong.

iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Sanandajinima-interactive.pdf

It shows in the graph in his link that female politician "competancy" (personal income) went down a bit over the same time period that that of men went up a bit

Wow. Wow. I am just laughing right now. This study is a fucking joke? The variation from year to year for both genders is higher than the "tital effect" at the end of the study. Not only that but the negative effect on women was BIGGER than the positive effect on men.

WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF GARBAGE IS THIS?

*final effect

Shit like this is how you can know that social "sciences" aren't actually at all.