A critique of diversity is not an attack on any group

Attacking diversity is not an attack on any minority group.


Why? Because we would be committing a fallacy of division. If purple people and green people together compose a system called diversity, and diversity has a property called failure, we have not at any point stated that purple or green people are failures. Most people have a problem comprehending design scope because to learn this tool, they must posses enough spatial IQ.


However, it is a method our beloved hipster uses in an attempt to argue with humans:

Human, “Multiculturalism isn’t so great. What good is it?”

Hipster (knocks down strawman), “So what’s your problem with the new Orange People in town?”

Some critiques against diversity are snared by an inversion of the logic failure given in the foregoing examples. But, rather than insisting an attribute of a whole system must then be found in any of its parts, the opposite occurs.

These critiques will single out one corrupted part of the system (old white men, dancing Latinas with fruit basket hats and frilly dresses, or gray skinned Zeta Reticulans with ray guns) as a way to demonstrate multicultural system malfunction.

Such a fallacy of composition, the flip side of division, is equally a failed argument. Moreso than sensationalist politics, logic is everyone’s ally.

Tags: ,

7 Responses to “A critique of diversity is not an attack on any group”

  1. Amanda says:

    Well, it’s an interesting metric. I like the starting point which challenges the assumption that politically correct condoning (applauding?) of diversity is good. However, I think you really want to look at this from a more wealth/poverty based perspective. Because power (followed by distribution of resources) is the greatest determinant of human migratory patterns, and the search for resources is the most significant motivation for migration, there are more wealth politics at play in this discussion than design principles, which are largely subjective. So in the given example, my question would be: do green and purple people have an equitable share of the resources? Because if not, my guess is that the potential for failure of successful “diversification” is greatly enhanced. And religion, of course, is the the other wildcard.

    • Eric says:

      No, green and purple people are just different from each other and ultimately have different agendas that don’t mix well. Not to mention, I personally think there is a certain biological/psychological thing where like likes like. That doesn’t mean different people can’t interact. And it is different for different people. But it is politically incorrect to discuss that this all might actually have true and genuine merit, so we ignore the possibility. That’s all.


  2. ChrisK says:

    So basically, the concept of ‘diversity’ is created via a discrepancy in wealth between ethnic groups?

    I believe he’s touching more on the susceptibility of those in society to assign false positive-stigma and engage in an odd adoration for ‘diversity’ because of their tendency to seek, at any an all cost, positive social reaction and feedback from those around them–thus reinforcing their absurd notion that everyone is “equal” and alloting them greater anonimity within the crowd. The tendency of people to do this increases with their lack of intellectual capability, and their internal awareness of that fact (even if in in the deep recesses of their minds).

    If I had a low IQ (or possibly even a high one yet zero courage), I would be very eager to declare everyone “equal” and thus hail diversity. It would serve to mitigate the risk of my lack of intelligence/courage from being so easily exposed…in turn increasing my relative value amongst my social group and society.

  3. highduke says:

    The Majority dont challenge ethnic, religious & cultural diversity because they are ‘cognitively challenged’, they’ve always been so throughout history, even more so in Traditional times. The Majority dont challenge diversity because 200 years Democracy have brought Democracy to its logical conclusion: Individualism, when nobody wants to have responsibility for an abstract concept that transcends the individual, as Aristotle observed & until mass-poverty prevails, White Americans wont be swayed.

  4. Josh says:

    The research shows diversity reduces social cohesion and trust.

    The ameliorate these effects Richwhine suggests selecting smart immigrants who tend to make better citizens:

    “Despite this research, the direct link between intelligence and social capital has been drawn only in a handful of technical articles. It is time to bring the IQ-social capital link out of the academic journals and into the policy debate. Doing so could help us deal realistically with the problems Putnam has identified.


    The social attitudes of citizens are the building blocks of social capital, and IQ plays a role in shaping many of them. For example, psychologists have developed measures of moral reasoning that overlap substantially with IQ. When confronted with a moral dilemma, a person operating at the lowest level of moral reasoning would consider only his own self-interest. As moral reasoning becomes more sophisticated, people tend to give more consideration to community welfare, and to apply abstract principles to resolve moral dilemmas. Because of the cognitive demands of such reasoning, smarter people are much more likely to transcend simple self-interest in their ethical thinking. People who do so are likely to be better neighbors and better citizens.


    This proposal works especially well in the broader debate over immigration. Many economists have advocated that the United States de-emphasize family preferences in favor of skill-based selection, much as Canada and Australia have already done. Though few people ever describe “skill” selection as a search for people with high IQs, immigrants with advanced degrees and sought-after talents are usually quite intelligent.

    Skill selection is a desirable way of addressing the problem of ethnic diversity because it is already a policy option on the table. More intelligent (or educated) immigrants would be more productive workers, and they would also have a much less objectionable social impact on the United States due to their enhanced ability to cooperate. Putnam’s concerns about deteriorating social capital form another argument for immigrant skill selection.

    When Robert Putnam came to my class five years ago, he presented some surprising and provocative results. But even more surprising is that his findings, public for at least two years, have generated so little substantive discussion among policymakers. The challenge that ethnic diversity poses to 21st century communities is significant, and meeting that challenge requires robust public discussion and debate. That discussion should include not just how we deal with the diversity of our current population, but how we can ensure future diversity causes as little harm as possible. Selecting intelligent immigrants is the smart way to begin.”


  5. highduke says:

    Selecting smart immigrants is the path to failure because they will be loyal to their own culture of origin within the framework of America’s vague secular consumer-culture, just as intelligent Negroes work for Negro interests within it, making America hopeless as a Union but if seperatism occurs, new nations can be formed by Germanic Americans based on traditional culture, to the exclusion of others, from which a cohesive ETHNICITY can arise after a couple of centuries.

    • I’m not so sure about this. My Great-Grandfather was a Border Patrol Officer. It’s not so much about selecting the “smart ones” as it is about screening out potential sources of criminal behavior. What I feel we need is a better cooperation between law enforcement agencies to keep out potential rapists and murderers.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>