Will Diversity ever not need enforcement?

[Theodarzna]

With the emergence of Diversity as a thing that is all the rage with the elite classes in the last forty years, and its litany of bureaucracy and administration that comes with it, I'm left to ask will the administrative bureaucracy of diversity ever go away? It seems that within Diversity, the difference is not simply a social fact of American society. It is its deepest truth. This makes difference an inescapable problem. A problem that has been haphazardly or efficiently met by a legion of Czars, HR reps, training specialists, consultants, lawyers, hate speech laws, anti-discrimination policies, regulation, affirmations provosts, deans, deanlets, and secretariats to name a few.

Critical race theorists in particular claim diversity are little more than propaganda designed to sideline discussions of racial justice and to legitimate the power of the elite classes and the power structure of society. Conservatives and more Right-leaning types also oppose it for a litany of reasons from its effects on Freedom of Association to various prejudices.

But it remains to be asked, what is the goal? Is Diversity a bit like Communism, that we need a dictatorship of the proliferate to create socialism and prepare the soil for communism at which point the administrative structure of Diversity will vanish only once the administrative superstructure as through distinct forms of legal regulation remade society and people so that they are Diverse? Or is Diversity simply a justification for an administrative superstructure, a never-ending problem to tackle by a never-ending litany of administrative bureaucracy. If differences are reconciled, new pinnacles of co-operation, creativity, productivity, and social harmony can be achieved. However, Since this process is neither natural nor automatic, skilled managers are essential for the good society to be realized. Bureaucracy becomes the pathway to progress. Thus Diversity becomes a make-work project for bureaucracy.

That is the question(s). Is Diversity a project with an end point or is it a perpetual administrative bureaucracy?

[Wyrt]

If people can't behave themselves the government has to step in to protect the rights of minorities. It's one of the main reasons governments exist. So, it'll need to be protected as long as people try to harm others.

And you can't say we're passed that point either as we're just 3 years out from gay marriage bans being struck down.

[Xeones]

We will have to do something about Trumps very fine people.

[Sunseeker]

God damn Theo, when you post bullshit, you post the biggest steaming piles you possibly can.

Here, let me sum up your post for everyone:

[GreenGoldSharpie]

As a conservative will say the goal is "Equal opportunity, not equal outcome." I don't see why some of you think it's an "ideology" to want the same opportunities to succeed despite being someone society thinks is gross or inferior for bullshit reasons.

[Theodarzna]

As a conservative will say the goal is "Equal opportunity, not equal outcome." I don't see why some of you think it's an "ideology" to want the same opportunities to succeed despite being someone society thinks is gross or inferior for bullshit reasons.

Equal opportunity has proven really difficult to accurately attain. Strictly equal opportunity is at best approximated because you have to factor in that not all start from the same point. Say children of intact families versus broken ones for example or place of birth or whatever.

How could we even reasonably assure equal opportunity without really radical social policies that no Conservative would ever support; or is it a limited equal opportunity?

[Deleted]

Probably yes, because it would seem that we are always just a step away from acting in very poor favour of those whom do not look exactly like ourselves. So supposedly we need a constant reminder, be it subtle or not, that they are indeed not actually different from ourselves.

Also, I will have to question, what is the budget of this diversity administrative bureaucracy, 0.1 % of our budgets? A whole 1 %? There is many things that I can regard to be wasteful spending, but that miniscule a price is not one to chase.

Which leads into another thing, which is how much it actually takes up, because it is presented as if it is all consuming of time, when we are often times talking about the slightest of sidenotes to far more consuming topics.

[Theodarzna]

Probably yes, because it would seem that we are always just a step away from acting in very poor favour of those whom do not look exactly like ourselves. So supposedly we need a constant reminder, be it subtle or not, that they are indeed not actually different from ourselves.

Also, I will have to question, what is the budget of this diversity administrative bureaucracy, 0.1 % of our budgets? A whole 1 %? There is many things that I can regard to be wasteful spending, but that miniscule a price is not one to chase.

Which leads into another thing, which is how much it actually takes up, because it is presented as if it is all consuming of time, when we are often times talking about the slightest of sidenotes to far more consuming topics.

I never mention its budget. I think budget wise its more a problem for universities and maybe corporations, but then again they have golden parachutes and legions of far more worthless administrative jobs there simply to make an executive look good.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Equal opportunity has proven really difficult to accurately attain. Strictly equal opportunity is at best approximated because you have to factor in that not all start from the same point. Say children of intact families versus broken ones for example or place of birth or whatever.

How could we even reasonably assure equal opportunity without really radical social policies that no Conservative would ever support; or is it a limited equal opportunity?

Ask them, it's their mantra. I'd agree it doesn't gel for shit with their social policies, but then they're really not doing anything socially anymore. Struggling for equal opportunity is a much better goal than trying to rub out someone's ideology, though. It doesn't matter if we ever get it perfect. It's a worthy social endeavor given it involves everyone.

[Deleted]

I never mention its budget. I think budget wise its more a problem for universities and maybe corporations, but then again they have golden parachutes and legions of far more worthless administrative jobs there simply to make an executive look good.

Well as I mentioned, it is sidenotes in politics. I know that some will present a minute from a speech, and talk about identity politics, but if it is from a 90 minute speech? Well then that's not exactly representing it fairly as if it is all that politics does.

[Theodarzna]

Ask them, it's their mantra. I'd agree it doesn't gel for shit with their social policies, but then they're really not doing anything socially anymore. Struggling for equal opportunity is a much better goal than trying to rub out someone's ideology, though. It doesn't matter if we ever get it perfect. It's a worthy social endeavor given it involves everyone.

How would you constrain it though? I mean, what would be the limits of equal opportunity? For example, it is suggested (Partially with merit) that having a loving intact family is an advantage, Do we handicap those people? Can we legislatively or through the instruments of beaurocracy rectify that imbalance?

After all, there is the Harrison Bergeron story that comes to mind in that sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Well as I mentioned, it is sidenotes in politics. I know that some will present a minute from a speech, and talk about identity politics, but if it is from a 90 minute speech? Well then that's not exactly representing it fairly as if it is all that politics does.

I'd say issues of diversity, inclusion/exclusion, identity and freedom of association have become all-consuming in politics lately. Nobody gives much a fuck about the tax rate, debt, or the influence of the financial sector compared to how many LGBT characters are in Star Wars and such. As a recent example, the CEO of Uber was forced to resign in disgrace not because his business model exploits vulnerable workers to undermine unions and destroy an honorable blue-collar profession, but because he made a sexist joke to Arianna Huffington. Or Brendan Eich stepping down following calls for his ouster over his support for California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8.

[xChurch]

For as long as people think of race, ethnicity, gender, etc as important factors when deciding ones worth for things like jobs and education yes. One day hopefully we will get to a point where people are judged purely on the content of their character, but we are still a ways off from that.

[Theodarzna]

For as long as people think of race, ethnicity, gender, etc as important factors when deciding ones worth for things like jobs and education yes. One day hopefully we will get to a point where people are judged purely on the content of their character, but we are still a ways off from that.

If I may poke you on this, would it be fair to say that you feel that after sufficient time of Diversity and exposure people will operate in relative harmony without divisions?

[GreenGoldSharpie]

How would you constrain it though? I mean, what would be the limits of equal opportunity? For example, it is suggested (Partially with merit) that having a loving intact family is an advantage, Do we handicap those people? Can we legislatively or through the instruments of beaurocracy rectify that imbalance?

After all, there is the Harrison Bergeron story that comes to mind in that sense.

This is a bunch of silly nonsense, and it's why I seldom take this place seriously. This isn't some radical concept or restructuring of society. Advocating for equal opportunity is reaffirming our commitment to investment in education and infrastructure while socially beating down the antisocial fuckheads who are increasingly becoming a problem. Being LGBT (or cis and straight) shouldn't socially hurt you, being male or female shouldn't socially hurt, and your skin color shouldn't hurt you. Probably a bunch of other things too.

Nothing at all radical about that as opposed to weird "identitarian" numbnuts debating the relevance of IQ.

[Elba]

As long as y'all racists exist people will need to step up and fight y'all.

[xChurch]

If I may poke you on this, would it be fair to say that you feel that after sufficient time of Diversity and exposure people will operate in relative harmony without divisions?

We'll always have some kind of divisions, but eventually, old ones get changed out for new ones as time moves on. I'm interested in getting over judging people on traits they have no control over and would much rather bicker about stuff we can change.

[Deleted]

I'd say issues of diversity, inclusion/exclusion, identity and freedom of association have become all-consuming in politics lately. Nobody gives much a fuck about the tax rate, debt, or the influence of the financial sector compared to how many LGBT characters are in Star Wars and such. As a recent example, the CEO of Uber was forced to resign in disgrace not because his business model exploits vulnerable workers to undermine unions and destroy an honorable blue-collar profession, but because he made a sexist joke to Arianna Huffington. Or Brendan Eich stepping down following calls for his ouster over his support for California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8.

I'd say there is two answers,

First, you have to realize how much media exists, and how that made it possible to run such stories. Because fundamentally, we have far more exposure to tax rate, debt etc., that an unfortunate side effect is that it might not be consumed in the same proportions is another factor. Add to this the emergence of far more cultural business acting, being made possible by a far more prosperous market.
Second, leading of the first one, is perspective. I for example work with government funding and economics, meaning of course I consume these things at a far higher rate than the what the norm would tend to be. This leaves me to have the perspective that it doesn't involve that it as much.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

We'll always have some kind of divisions, but eventually, old ones get changed out for new ones as time moves on. I'm interested in getting over judging people on traits they have no control over and would much rather bicker about stuff we can change.

This. Exactly this.

[Endus]

Wherein Theo and others act in bad faith, asking why a system of systemic discrimination and oppression centuries and generations in the making didn't get solved in a few short decades of half-assed partial measures being granted lip service.

The moment discrimination and prejudice on these issues ends, there will be no need for enforcement. But this takes generations to achieve. A good historical example is to look at the old European prejudice against left-handed people. The original Latin for "left" is the root for the English word "sinister" for a very specific reason. It was deemed evil, left-handed kids were smacked and forced to learn to write right-handed, and so on. That prejudice eventually collapsed, and today we think it's quaint and ridiculous and nobody would think there's any merit to it because of how innately silly it is.

We need to reach that point with race and ethnicity. And everyone bitching and whining about diversity measures is just underscoring that we haven't reached that point yet, and thus we still need those programs.

[Theodarzna]

I'd say there is two answers,

First, you have to realize how much media exists, and how that made it possible to run such stories. Because fundamentally, we have far more exposure to tax rate, debt etc., that an unfortunate side effect is that it might not be consumed in the same proportions is another factor. Add to this the emergence of far more cultural business acting, being made possible by a far more prosperous market.
Second, leading of the first one, is perspective. I for example work with government funding and economics, meaning of course I consume these things at a far higher rate than the what the norm would tend to be. This leaves me to have the perspective that it doesn't involve that it as much.

I have a different take. I don't so much blame the media but a distinct kind of post Cold-War politics in which in theory, we have already hit on and discovered all the important issues of our age. In an age when anything of importance cannot be in the realm of politics and political decision making, the issues that get focused upon are issues of greater symbolic significance than real substance.

Should Captain America be a transgender Hispanic convert to Islam? That is a more or less shallow question. But these sorts of "Culture War" things have become very prevalent, especially as the Cold War ended and allegedly there isn't supposed to be any competing ideologies against Liberalism in the more generic non-American specific sense.

When more fundamental questions become impossible to voice, only shallow questions get discussed. But I do think the media runs with these things because they can generate symbolic meaning and thus controversy, as shallow as the controversy is.

- - - Updated - - -

We'll always have some kind of divisions, but eventually, old ones get changed out for new ones as time moves on. I'm interested in getting over judging people on traits they have no control over and would much rather bicker about stuff we can change.

What would be your response to the phrase "Familiarity breeds contempt?"