That goes against all the claims of the left. Even while they are committing crimes they try to blame the right for their actions. Just look at BLM and the anarchists'.
One group in a society trying to exclude, include or otherwise single out another group does not change the diversity of that society. From your posts it would seem you have a different definition of diversity. How do you define it?
nonsense, there is a direct and clear corrolation between socio-economic inequality and crime. go ahead and deny it.
Correlation is NOT causation! All you're seeing is parallel symptoms of poor impulse control, personal dysfunction, cultural failure, etc etc. I deny it six ways from Christmas! The claim that poverty causes crime is the most insular nonsense, in light of the fact that there are billions of very poor people in the world (people much poorer than the poorest Americans) who don't do crime.
Those poor people probably don’t have access to the same crime opportunities . The rag pickers in Calcutta wont be mugging people for their Rolexes.
Seriously? That's your go-to argument? Not enough Rolex's? Even then, if you think there aren't any pricey watches walking around Indian cities you clearly haven't been there. Anything to avoid calling it what it is, eh? A result of seriously sh!tty family culture, perpetuated by people who have no honour and even less regard for the safety and welfare of their children.
Diversity should include al peoples, whether or not they all agree. Just to have the information prior to making a choice. Any other way is discrimination and tunnel vision toward a subject.
*sigh* No, I don't believe 'they' fear diversity. I believe the idea is that people who are qualified for a position, all things being equal, are being passed over based on what their lack of 'special attributes'. They aren't a racial minority, they aren't of a non-heterosexual group, or other attributes that some seem to include under the 'diversity'* umbrella. *Post 1990's definition That way, companies can claim they are 'diverse' (and satisfy those that deem that a qualifying position). Most companies actually used 'qualified' as their basis for hiring people. Most companies don't care what color, religion, sexual orientation, gender or nationality someone is. Those that would care, suffer the legal implications. But apparently, one must wave a flag in the current world and have a 'diversity' policy.
White people are not the only ones to do this, if you have any knowledge of history you would see that is something all races took part in. Whites were just the best in modern times of doing it. Same with slavery, we were not the first or the only, however we were the ones that ended it. Besides all of that, why even bring that up as a rebuttal to his quote? Does that somehow make it Ok for black people to go around white neighborhoods and demand they move out and give their stuff away to black people? I just find it funny how people like you shame white people in an effort to justify the actions of "diverse" people.
The response was not to shame anyone. I was merely pointing out that strong-arming people and taking what is theirs is something that has happened throughout history. I am not and have never excused the current takeover attempts and do not find any of it helpful toward the eradication of racial injustices in this country. With that said, it is unfair to claim the very definition of diversity has somehow changed because *some* people do not the changing scope of our society which has made it more inclusive. It only matters now to some people when they are the ones that are being oppressed and silenced.
I agree, most companies at least try to use diverse hiring practices. Unfortunately all of the special interest groups seem to use only their own agenda for admitting others. Have to be the same race, sexual orientation, have the same political views to have what is considered "valued" input. This is not diversity, this is bigoted segregation for the purpose of allowing only their own agenda. Causing an awful lot of agitation and distrust.
The definition of diversity hasn't changed, the progressive definition of diversity has changed. Technically, having more than one of anything is diversity. So if a company employees a woman or a black or a gay person, then they are technically diverse. For the left that is not good enough. They require a company has a certain percentage, and those people need to be in all levels, and especially the top levels, of everything. That is FORCED diversity. That is not a natural "changing scope of society", that is forcing out the old for the new. I do appreciate that you acknowledge that white people are being oppressed and silenced. That is a start at least.
Absolutely, but it's complicated. Let's start with the opposite case. Jane Jacobs studied a neighborhood that was destined to be paved over. The government was hoping for an excuse. This is in Death and life of great american cities. But what she found was that this area was actually healthier than surrounding and more affluent areas, and had fairly low levels of crime. Just by accident it was built in such a way that it made a community of it's residents. A lot of what we do is wrong.
Diversity does include all peoples. Because someone in a society is racist or tries to exclude some people does not change the human diversity of that society.
The bait & pounce, back-&-forth between Arjay51 & MJ Davies at the start of this thread, w/ clearly neither one having any interest in hearing, or understanding the origins of, the other's view would be, to anyone hoping for us to get along, as a country, so incredibly disheartening & depressing if it wasn't so FREAKIN' HILARIOUS!!! I think I'm finally getting why people like professional wrestling.
It sounds like you are saying that oppression is okay as long as it's toward <X> but not your/our own. Is that what you are trying to convey?
Wrong. The exclusion of these people is denying diversity. Excluding someone because you think they are racist or, fill in the blank, exemplifies the lack of diversity.
Your OPINION says much more about you than you care to express directly. I requested input yet you disparage it from occurring. This expresses your desire for a lack of diversity by only allowing what you want to hear.
OK, maybe I didn't use the right words. Most companies don't care about specific characteristics, they care about ability, knowledge, attitude. If they bypass someone with the qualifications to satisfy the 'diversity' aspect, then it's a problem. If the candidate happens to have a 'diversity' qualification AND all the other attributes, then it's a bonus.