Is diversity good?

Okay pol, let's have a serious discussion. Is diversity a strength to a business, government, judiciary system? Without using arguments like:
>niggers are a detriment
Tell me good reasons why the push for diversity has no basis. I see it as a good in the sense that a government should represent it's people because different races have different viewpoints. Likewise, in a business, an African American may see a problem differently than a white American. Please use reason to prove me wrong

Other urls found in this thread:

petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immigration-priority-south-african-farmers-facing-systematic-land-confiscations-and-murder
tandfonline.
archive.is/0MaXn
archive.is/K5QVb
archive.is/sE7tu
macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/benediktsson2013/files/2013/04/Putnam.pdf.
web.archive.org/web/20150724005019/http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/benediktsson2013/files/2013/04/Putnam.pdf
archive.is/3UGuF
twitter.com/AnonBabble

You're perceiving diversity incorrectly, you see the rainbow on pic related? All the colors are separated in their respective. However, do you know what happens when they all clash together? It forms a big mound of irredeemable shit. Anyhow, sign this
petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immigration-priority-south-african-farmers-facing-systematic-land-confiscations-and-murder

I will sign that petition if you answer me, why should our immigration policies choose certain races to prioritize? America is an idea, not a group of a certain race

a team concept is always going to be better than individual efforts

the problem starts when some of the members feel they are more entitled than others for whatever reasons

Diversity is great, the main issue I have is that equal opportunity equality of outcome.

Favoring women, minorities, for a role is completely sexist and racist. Best worker for the role should be hired in all cases zero exceptions or else you are knowingly in a less efficient civilisation.

So you would be for diversity? I think your second point is valid, but does not supersede your first

Diversity can be fine when you can successfully assimilate races of people that have proven themselves worthy of belonging and contributing to a contemporary society, and also ensuring these separate racial groups can coexist seamlessly. Black people can leave, for good. So can Mexicans and kebabs. Some eastern peoples are OK. Usually "diversity" just leads to the largest racial group in a melting pot taking over and overwhelming other smaller racial populations, until they are the majority. This can then lead to various cultures and traditions being lost amongst all of the "diversity". In summary I would say that it sounds fantastic, but in practice it is quite destructive.

I would agree on the face of that argument, but there does seem to be some validity to the idea that diversity has intrinsic value. Would you be against affirmative action of any kind (I personally think today's affirmative action is horrible and racist, but I think there is a way it can be done morally).

not even little nigger kids liked obongo

I think I agree with what you're saying but I haven't heard a cogent argument for not allowing any diversity because that outcome would be inevitable. How do we reason that outcome will happen? Ultimately you must say that races are inherently different which is true generally but not always specifically.

>You have a newsletter to send out to locals.
Do you want to have to translate it and every other piece of business into 20 different languages ? Would that slow everything you did to a crawl ?

I am not convinced that one large mixed civilisation is better than many smaller competing ethnostates. History favors the latter significantly.

pic related is diversity of thought, which is gewwd.

Language and race may be correlated, but most minority Americans speak English, try again.

>america is an idea
Wrong

I agree with you that a mixed civilization is obviously weaker. Just look at all the racial tension going on here right now. But we cannot morally change the demographics (kill or remove minorities) so what is the best path forward?

Care to explain? I understand that identity is a very strong aspect of everyone's lives, but it is not the basis for this country's strength or power

I don't think we should outlaw diversity per-se, but I do feel that it should be discouraged betwixt some groups, and encouraged with others. It can be and is very valuable in modern society. But I believe certain racial groups have the capability to coexist much better, if not near flawlessly with other groups due to their current standing/cultural similarities/economic and political environment.

That sounds convincing to me. It seems that many people self-segregate in everyday life (as a college student I see this a lot), but for jobs like public defenders and judges, it seems like a good idea for them to represent the community

>kill or remove minorities
Race war now is a solution, but if you are actually serious then immediate controlled immigration + increase of direct foreign aid to countries that have highest populations of potential migrants. Immediately end all diversity quotas and targets as they ultimately lead to even more racism (the paradox the left never seem to understand).

Sure, but let's say I was hired because I am an excellent [JOB] and someone else was hired because they are [MINORITY] as well as [JOB].
I am going to be asked my opinion on things only pertaining to [JOB], as I was hired based on my skill at [JOB]. Things that do not require the opinion of someone excellent at [JOB], I will not be asked about or included in.
They will be asked their opinion as [MINORITY], as they were hired based on their [MINORITY].
Now, what would happen if the boss said, "We do not require the opinion of [MINORITY] for this," to the other employee? In most cases, that is up to HR or the court.

Hiring someone based on their minority status automatically entitles them to a say in matters that may not concern them.

>Is diversity a strength to a business,

It's about people who feel unappreciated, and choose to sabotage themselves and future generations.

>Okay pol, let's have a serious discussion. Is diversity a strength to a business, government, judiciary system? Without using arguments like:
Is multiple cooks all doing their own thing in the same pot good?
Businesses have a mission statement do direct everyone in one direction, not diverse directions.
Laws should be enforced based on laws, not on how the judge feels about the defendant (either punishing beyond the law or not punishing at all because minority, either are bad)
Would you agree that governments are/should be for the people? in a monolithic culture, that's simple. Japan's government is for the Japanese people. Who's the government for in the US? Everyone at once even though they want/need different things?

>Tell me good reasons why the push for diversity has no basis.
Because the experiment already failed. See Canada and Quebec. See history in general.
>I see it as a good in the sense that a government should represent it's people because different races have different viewpoints. Likewise, in a business, an African American may see a problem differently than a white American. Please use reason to prove me wrong
If the African sees it as oppression or lack of strong magic, that's not good despite being diverse. Being pragmatic isn't racial.

What is the argument against immigration to this country without sounding racist though?

As an aside in case it comes up
Assimilation takes generations, not years
If an Indian woman born in the UK moves to Brazil and has kids, will those kids identify as English Brazilians or Indian Brazilians?

First you need to separate the word "diversity" from race. You can have an extremely diverse group of people who look similar but think and act differently.
The way diversity is being used makes it obvious its a jewish trick. You can't rationally argue against diversity. But you can argue against needlessly filling jobs based on race. Jews intentionally mixed these words to confuse us. They did the same thing with "Racist" and "White Privilege"
Its the age old kike trick

It is every countries' right to determine this. How else can you claim any sort of sovereignty unless you can control your borders? We are not talking about refugess (humanitarian issue) this is normal immigration ? You have a right to control that

How the fuck can a nigger see a problem with something that I wouldn't just because I am white? I have heard this logic countless times in my life, yet I have never seen it actually occur. Niggers are entirely worse at engineering (my profession) than whites. 100 percent of the time.

>You disappoint our ancestors uncle tom

>Business
Good for the business owners but bad for the workers. Business owners profit more off the cheap labor but workers suffer because minorities work cheaper for less and devalue wages.

>Government
Minorities vote for larger government %80 of the time. This is bad for tax payers because it increases their tax burdens and bad for welfare recipients because welfare programs attract immigrants leading to welfare having to be spread out more. This also hurts welfare recipients because inflation devalues what little currency they have (people living off of welfare don't have enough to purchase assets) and slows job creation giving them less opportunities to escape poverty.

>Court System
He dindu nuttin' wrong. He a good boy.

>Tell me good reasons why the push for diversity has no basis.
Resources are finite and should be allocated to those who can use them most efficiently to produce more resources (Increasing supply, lowering demand and making resources more abundant and readily available). Pushing diversity ignores meritocracy and meritocracy is blind to race.

>I see it as a good in the sense that a government should represent it's people because different races have different viewpoints.
A government that represents everyone represents no one. The government should represent individual rights not collective interests.

>Likewise, in a business, an African American may see a problem differently than a white American.
Using the state to force in more niggers into the business isn't going to make the business more effective. Just because one nigger has merit doesn't mean that if you add six more niggers they will all have the same merit. Again meritocracy ignores race.

>so what is the best path forward?
freedom of association leading to autonomous regions, later ethnostates in the current USA

>sounding racist
you cannot avoid be labeled as racists
if you agree that races exists and are different one from another, the you're a racist

Diversity is empirically proven to be bad for just about everything, or at least not good.

tandfonline.
com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2015.1130785
>High ethnic diversity has a negative effect on innovation

Environmental Performance in Socially Fragmented Countries (2012) by Elissaios Papyrakis [Sup Forums thinks the direct link is spam, so search for the article in Google scholar]
>Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/
>Diversity correlates with lower GDP per capita. Strong democracy correlates with ethnic homogeneity.

www.nber.org/ papers/w8627
Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units.

I can go on with studies like these for hours.

It doesn't matter if they're well-behaved Chinese or barely-functional niggers, diversity is bad in all cases for everything, no amount of assimilation or integration will change that.

If you are in product development or marketing then you may want to hire diversity only if you plan on marketing to a diverse market. Otherwise it is a detriment bc of the strength of communication associated with ingroup bias. Manufacturing, construction, and agriculture should hire ingroup.

Diversity is good, for brown people. Free shit. For white people it's the opposite.

Yup
Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List. archive.is/0MaXn

The downside of diversity. A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth? archive.is/K5QVb HARVARD: archive.is/sE7tu macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/benediktsson2013/files/2013/04/Putnam.pdf. web.archive.org/web/20150724005019/http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/benediktsson2013/files/2013/04/Putnam.pdf

STUDY: Increased Ethnic Diversity Making Brits Miserable. archive.is/3UGuF

>Is diversity a strength to a business, government, judiciary system? Without using arguments like

>argument 1
No! Multiculturalism Does Not Work.
The results are always disastrous every time widely different cultures are forced to co-exist

>argument 2
there is no reason to throw the poor under the bus in order to bring in a population whose not accustomed to the language, routines and infrastructure of the country.
And to force the population into accepting this by changing laws and definitions, and making it a criminal offence to criticise the government.
it's unprecedented evil, Armenian genocide level

>argument 3
Governments are elected to represent the people who elected them. NOT THE WORLD.
Politicians have neither the capacity nor the will to represent the fucking world. Its a joke.
Globalization a scapegoat for politicians who dont want to take the political responsibility of the office they are elected to represent.
They should not control the world, no 1 person should control the fucking world!
Politicians are elected to represent their own fucking people, not international trade or international institutions.
Their own fucking people and their own fucking industries residing inside the borders of their state/country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nigger suck but they cannot help it because they are NIGGERS, but the are still violent so they must go back to NIGGER LAND. On the other hand, hook nosed kikes suck ass and deserved to be gassed and have their fillings pulled out for the gold and the rest boiled down for soap. I have a Master's degree. Go do your op research someplace else...Kike

Diversity of skin color will literally either do nothing for a group or do be a detriment to a group, especially if they are being favored over someone with much higher skills.
Diversity of thought is what is truly important. If you have a nigger and a white guy thinking the same thing what difference will it make? If you have two white guys who disagree on a topic but can come together to make a solution, that solution will probably be much better.
Just pure logic here.

>argument 4
Cultures are supposed to be protected
remember the old days when anthropologists never ventured into the territory of indigenous tribes in Asia, Africa and South-America?

Those days are long gone..
Now those tribes are forced by increased western outsourced industrialization infringing on their territories to cater to tourists.

Fat german socialist fucks who either want to fuck them or eat them.
Its disgusting, at least to a normal person, i bet socialists love it.
Cultures are supposed to be protected, not destroyed!

Natural diversity is a good thing.
Forced diversity is a bad thing.

>in a business, an African American may see a problem differently than a white American
you dont bet the entire premise of destroying the cultural heritage and cultural future of the entire world on a few extra bucks on a business deal

But Natural diversity can only happen after a long time of forced diversity.

>diversity is good
>that's why we need to force it on people who don't want it
please help me understand this

A) It wasn't founded that way and was subverted in the 60s

B) Demographics = Destiny and not all peoples can make, fund, and maintain innovative civilizations

My company just gave themselves a "thumbs up" for hiring fewer white men in 2017. Pic very related.