Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

The Diversity Amendment

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 3:08:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
(braces for impact)

It is no surprise that I do not value diversity for diversity's sake, and I find diversity to be inherently racist, as it purports that all of X have some universal factor in common.

Regardless, others do value it, so I am curious if you would support this amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and we'll assume it can be done and will pass all challenges):

In order to preserve proper representation among its citizens, all levels of government positions elected by public elections will follow the following requirements:
1. Within any three consecutive winners of any public election, there must be at least one minority and one majority.
2. Within any three consecutive winners of any public election, there must be at least one man and one woman.

In other words, assume this was passed in 2008. The US presidential candidates in 2016 must all be white women. In 2012, it could be anyone. If the law was passed in 2000, then in 2008, the US presidential candidates would all have been minority women. For the sake of the conversation, ignore what happens when whites become the plurality as opposed to majority.

Three elections, at least one man, one woman, one white, and one minority in every third.
If you agree that diversity is a laudable value, do you agree with this amendment, assuming it could be done? Why or why not?
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 3:41:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 3:08:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
(braces for impact)

It is no surprise that I do not value diversity for diversity's sake, and I find diversity to be inherently racist, as it purports that all of X have some universal factor in common.

Regardless, others do value it, so I am curious if you would support this amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and we'll assume it can be done and will pass all challenges):

In order to preserve proper representation among its citizens, all levels of government positions elected by public elections will follow the following requirements:
1. Within any three consecutive winners of any public election, there must be at least one minority and one majority.
2. Within any three consecutive winners of any public election, there must be at least one man and one woman.

In other words, assume this was passed in 2008. The US presidential candidates in 2016 must all be white women. In 2012, it could be anyone. If the law was passed in 2000, then in 2008, the US presidential candidates would all have been minority women. For the sake of the conversation, ignore what happens when whites become the plurality as opposed to majority.

Three elections, at least one man, one woman, one white, and one minority in every third.
If you agree that diversity is a laudable value, do you agree with this amendment, assuming it could be done? Why or why not?

This is diversity for diversity's sake at its finest. It takes merit almost completely out of the equation.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 3:48:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 3:41:45 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:08:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
(braces for impact)

It is no surprise that I do not value diversity for diversity's sake, and I find diversity to be inherently racist, as it purports that all of X have some universal factor in common.

Regardless, others do value it, so I am curious if you would support this amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and we'll assume it can be done and will pass all challenges):

In order to preserve proper representation among its citizens, all levels of government positions elected by public elections will follow the following requirements:
1. Within any three consecutive winners of any public election, there must be at least one minority and one majority.
2. Within any three consecutive winners of any public election, there must be at least one man and one woman.

In other words, assume this was passed in 2008. The US presidential candidates in 2016 must all be white women. In 2012, it could be anyone. If the law was passed in 2000, then in 2008, the US presidential candidates would all have been minority women. For the sake of the conversation, ignore what happens when whites become the plurality as opposed to majority.

Three elections, at least one man, one woman, one white, and one minority in every third.
If you agree that diversity is a laudable value, do you agree with this amendment, assuming it could be done? Why or why not?

This is diversity for diversity's sake at its finest. It takes merit almost completely out of the equation.

I'm aware. I like taking things to the logical extreme.
But, it doesn't take merit out of the equation. It's not like in most races, there aren't qualified people to run. The 2012 GOP primary had a woman and a minority, so it's not like they don't exist. Unless these were token candidates for show, clearly, there are capable people that are just crowded out. Isn't that the same logic people use to promote diversity?
My work here is, finally, done.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 3:59:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 3:08:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
(braces for impact)

I don't think diversity is a virtue either, but how is it racist? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 4:08:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 3:59:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:08:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
(braces for impact)

I don't think diversity is a virtue either, but how is it racist? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Collectivism for the sole sake of collectivism is collectivist.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 4:10:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 4:08:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:59:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:08:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
(braces for impact)

I don't think diversity is a virtue either, but how is it racist? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Collectivism for the sole sake of collectivism is collectivist.

Collectivism is not synonymous with racism, though. Racism is a kind of collectivism.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 4:11:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 4:10:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2015 4:08:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:59:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:08:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
(braces for impact)

I don't think diversity is a virtue either, but how is it racist? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Collectivism for the sole sake of collectivism is collectivist.

Collectivism is not synonymous with racism, though. Racism is a kind of collectivism.

Oh, I see the part you're talking about. Nevermind.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 4:12:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 3:59:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:08:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
(braces for impact)

I don't think diversity is a virtue either, but how is it racist? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, my argument isn't at the purpose of the thread ;)
I am seeing if people would agree with this proposal.

To answer your question, you have to keep in mind I am referring to diversity for the sake of diversity, and not any real benefit (like different points of views).
What is diversity, in the usual US meaning? Having different races and sexes. Okay, but why is that a virtue? The only way it is is if you assume there are actual differences between the races and sexes. Further, since diversity usually stops there, it assumes that all of X race or gender are the same, because you have achieved diversity by having them there.
To me, that is racism, since you are treating people based on their race (to achieve diversity), and generalizing the race to secure diversity was reached (I don't think Obama counts as the disenfranchised black guy, so having Obama on staff is not really diverse, is it?).
My work here is, finally, done.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 4:16:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 4:12:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:59:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:08:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
(braces for impact)

I don't think diversity is a virtue either, but how is it racist? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, my argument isn't at the purpose of the thread ;)
I am seeing if people would agree with this proposal.

To answer your question, you have to keep in mind I am referring to diversity for the sake of diversity, and not any real benefit (like different points of views).
What is diversity, in the usual US meaning? Having different races and sexes. Okay, but why is that a virtue? The only way it is is if you assume there are actual differences between the races and sexes. Further, since diversity usually stops there, it assumes that all of X race or gender are the same, because you have achieved diversity by having them there.
To me, that is racism, since you are treating people based on their race (to achieve diversity), and generalizing the race to secure diversity was reached (I don't think Obama counts as the disenfranchised black guy, so having Obama on staff is not really diverse, is it?).

But diversity covers more than racism (things such as sexism are caused via diversity for diversity's sake), so diversity isn't equal to racism.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 4:21:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 4:16:33 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/25/2015 4:12:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:59:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:08:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
(braces for impact)

I don't think diversity is a virtue either, but how is it racist? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, my argument isn't at the purpose of the thread ;)
I am seeing if people would agree with this proposal.

To answer your question, you have to keep in mind I am referring to diversity for the sake of diversity, and not any real benefit (like different points of views).
What is diversity, in the usual US meaning? Having different races and sexes. Okay, but why is that a virtue? The only way it is is if you assume there are actual differences between the races and sexes. Further, since diversity usually stops there, it assumes that all of X race or gender are the same, because you have achieved diversity by having them there.
To me, that is racism, since you are treating people based on their race (to achieve diversity), and generalizing the race to secure diversity was reached (I don't think Obama counts as the disenfranchised black guy, so having Obama on staff is not really diverse, is it?).

But diversity covers more than racism (things such as sexism are caused via diversity for diversity's sake), so diversity isn't equal to racism.

Yes, sexism, ableism, religionism, whatever. It's much more concise to just focus on one, for the sake of simplicity.
My work here is, finally, done.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 4:21:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 4:12:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:59:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:08:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
(braces for impact)

I don't think diversity is a virtue either, but how is it racist? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, my argument isn't at the purpose of the thread ;)
I am seeing if people would agree with this proposal.

To answer your question, you have to keep in mind I am referring to diversity for the sake of diversity, and not any real benefit (like different points of views).
What is diversity, in the usual US meaning? Having different races and sexes. Okay, but why is that a virtue? The only way it is is if you assume there are actual differences between the races and sexes. Further, since diversity usually stops there, it assumes that all of X race or gender are the same, because you have achieved diversity by having them there.
To me, that is racism, since you are treating people based on their race (to achieve diversity), and generalizing the race to secure diversity was reached (I don't think Obama counts as the disenfranchised black guy, so having Obama on staff is not really diverse, is it?).

I don't think any of those assumptions are right. People who think diversity is a virtue argue that race often influences one's perspective, and that as a result, racial diversity usually leads to diversity of views.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 4:29:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 4:21:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

People who think diversity is a virtue argue that race often influences one's perspective, and that as a result, racial diversity usually leads to diversity of views.

Look at what you wrote.
So, is it assumed that all of race X will have the same perspective? If not, then trumpeting a diverse arena is meaningless, since they could have the exact same perspective of you.

It is assumed that all of race X will have a different perspective than race Y? Replace perspective with intelligence, and one is offensive and the other is laudable.
My work here is, finally, done.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 4:32:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 4:29:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 4:21:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

People who think diversity is a virtue argue that race often influences one's perspective, and that as a result, racial diversity usually leads to diversity of views.

Look at what you wrote.
So, is it assumed that all of race X will have the same perspective? If not, then trumpeting a diverse arena is meaningless, since they could have the exact same perspective of you.


Notice how I included the word "often".

It is assumed that all of race X will have a different perspective than race Y? Replace perspective with intelligence, and one is offensive and the other is laudable.

There's nothing racist about saying that a certain race tends to think differently than another race because of their unique cultural experience.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 4:52:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 3:48:30 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:41:45 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:08:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
(braces for impact)

It is no surprise that I do not value diversity for diversity's sake, and I find diversity to be inherently racist, as it purports that all of X have some universal factor in common.

Regardless, others do value it, so I am curious if you would support this amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and we'll assume it can be done and will pass all challenges):

In order to preserve proper representation among its citizens, all levels of government positions elected by public elections will follow the following requirements:
1. Within any three consecutive winners of any public election, there must be at least one minority and one majority.
2. Within any three consecutive winners of any public election, there must be at least one man and one woman.

In other words, assume this was passed in 2008. The US presidential candidates in 2016 must all be white women. In 2012, it could be anyone. If the law was passed in 2000, then in 2008, the US presidential candidates would all have been minority women. For the sake of the conversation, ignore what happens when whites become the plurality as opposed to majority.

Three elections, at least one man, one woman, one white, and one minority in every third.
If you agree that diversity is a laudable value, do you agree with this amendment, assuming it could be done? Why or why not?

This is diversity for diversity's sake at its finest. It takes merit almost completely out of the equation.

I'm aware. I like taking things to the logical extreme.
But, it doesn't take merit out of the equation. It's not like in most races, there aren't qualified people to run. The 2012 GOP primary had a woman and a minority, so it's not like they don't exist. Unless these were token candidates for show, clearly, there are capable people that are just crowded out. Isn't that the same logic people use to promote diversity?

Say Candidate A is the best person for the job based on merit, qualifications, etc but can't run because they're a minority or not a minority or not a woman or are a woman. It degrades merit. Candidate B might be the 4th best candidate but the best based on who is allowed to run.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 5:39:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Not a fan. Presupposing the State and democracy and all that fun stuff, this doesn't even make any sense.

On the first level, why do you not include individuals who exist outside of the gender binary? The gender binary is crap anyway, so if you really want to ensure diversity, you need to take it further anyway (and I mean this one most seriously). Further, why limit it to majority/minority, and not every single permutation of race in the US? Why limit it to race? Why not ensure that there must be candidates of every physical ability status, mental health status, wealth status, pregnancy, sexuality, etc.? There's an infinite regress, an infinite amount of combinations that must be included if diversity is truly the goal.

But moving beyond that, this doesn't make any modicum of sense insofar as it already dictates who HAS to win elections. If two white men hold office after one another, then this amendment takes away the entire point of voting--if the election came down to, say, Nancy Pelosi and Condoleezza Rice, Rice must win by default. Or if Sonita Sotomayor and Rice are running, and you disagree with both of their politics, one of them HAS to win, regardless of the outcome of the election.

I know it's a thought experiment, but it's nonsense.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 6:51:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 3:08:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

When you say diversity, I think you mean quotas or forced diversity. Diversity isn't racist lol
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 7:03:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Equitable work initiatives don't dictate what demographics the next person you hire has to fall into. Rather, they show that, given equitable hiring conditions, we would expect to see a certain breakdown of demographics among those hired. I don't know what the proposed model is trying to emulate.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 7:19:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 3:08:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
(braces for impact)

It is no surprise that I do not value diversity for diversity's sake, and I find diversity to be inherently racist, as it purports that all of X have some universal factor in common.

Regardless, others do value it, so I am curious if you would support this amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and we'll assume it can be done and will pass all challenges):

In order to preserve proper representation among its citizens, all levels of government positions elected by public elections will follow the following requirements:
1. Within any three consecutive winners of any public election, there must be at least one minority and one majority.
2. Within any three consecutive winners of any public election, there must be at least one man and one woman.

In other words, assume this was passed in 2008. The US presidential candidates in 2016 must all be white women. In 2012, it could be anyone. If the law was passed in 2000, then in 2008, the US presidential candidates would all have been minority women. For the sake of the conversation, ignore what happens when whites become the plurality as opposed to majority.

Three elections, at least one man, one woman, one white, and one minority in every third.
If you agree that diversity is a laudable value, do you agree with this amendment, assuming it could be done? Why or why not?

No
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 9:12:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 7:03:14 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Equitable work initiatives don't dictate what demographics the next person you hire has to fall into. Rather, they show that, given equitable hiring conditions, we would expect to see a certain breakdown of demographics among those hired. I don't know what the proposed model is trying to emulate.

I was about to say this but Maikuru beat me to it.

Diversity is a measuring stick by which to judge discrimination. It is not to be forced upon an organization or politics.