Diversity's Oppressions

[_JS]

I think I've said my peace Js.  I appreciate the time, but it's obvious you're not going to understand my POV, be it on purpouse or not, the position that this isn't about being against diversity.  It's about beng against diversity for the sake of simply being for diversity. It's about being against support of an immigrant's own culture over that of American culture.  And the wreckless allegations and innuendo that Sowell is simply against anyone embracing their own culture & diversity, simply reinforces how this disagreement is not going to be solved

I'm not even certain why immigration is even a part of this discussion, but whatever lets you sleep at night I suppose.

The problem with your point of view Sirs is that it is not found in this article. There's nothing reckless being said here. You simply have been completely unable to demonstrate how this article is not against diversity. I even took the liberty of allowing a few friends of mine in Britain read this, without me telling them anything beforehand. All three of them reached nearly the same conclusion that UP and I have. (One of them is even a neo-liberal Thatcherite, so certainly no leftist by any definition of the word)

I just cannot fathom how you can even apply your definition of diversity to Sowell's historical examples. To take that one step further, and I know you won't, apply your definition of diversity to the genocide of the Roma in Germany. It is a logical application using your author's very own style.

I have a theory about this, but I'll wait to see if there is a response.

[sirs]

The problem with your point of view Sirs is that it is not found in this article. There's nothing reckless being said here. You simply have been completely unable to demonstrate how this article is not against diversity.

Actually, I do believe I have.  You've simply concluded that it can't possibly be accurate

[Universe Prince]

We are a society of freedom, right?

No.

We are a society based on the rule of law.

Is it your assertion then that our society, American society, is not free? America is not the land of the free but the land of the rule of law?

[Universe Prince]

The rights that belong to a Human Being by natural right should always be a matter of discusson between citizens.

Why?

The enjoyment of a right in the context of a society is often a compromise ,  the social order can be a tool for the protection of rights and the production of priveledges the enhancement of safety.

A compromise with what? Safety? No, there is no real reason to compromise between rights and safety. The safest thing for society is the protection of rights. There is, therefore, no compromise needed. The only time people start insist there is a need for compromise between rights and safety is when they want to start infringing on the liberty to exercise one's rights. And that never makes society safer.

With no social order only the strong and intellegent and welthy would have a full set of rights , the less advantaged become by one means or another enslaved.

Was someone arguing against social order? Anyway, you're confusing rights and liberty again, imo. And I think history has shown that even with social order, some people can still end up enslaved. So social order is hardly synonymous with the protection of rights.

With a social order there can be a structure that protects rights and safety mutually up to the amount that there can be a consensus of what is needed and right , this consencus ought to involve fair and strong debate open to all.

Conversely, with social order there can be a structure that oppresses the liberty and safety of a minority by majority consensus. So having a consensus of what is needed and right is not a guarantee of the protection of rights or of liberty or of safety. In any case, you seem to be confusing society and social order. Society does not exist because we have a social order. Social order exists because we have a society. And even if we had an anarcho-capitalist society with no "democratic"  consensus or government, we would still have a social order because society would still exist. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with people building a consensus among themselves as to what is needed and right within society. The problem comes when people decide their consensus should be enforced on everyone else. And a consensus that is made to apply to everyone is really what you're talking about, are you not?

[Universe Prince]

The most necessary common ideal might be to "Live and let live " or to " Let all go to hell in their own way " as sort of a minimum requirement . What is the solution for a person or set of persons who do not share this minimum and live amoung us?

I believe the solution we have is that they become involved in politics and try to make their preferences into laws. Anyway, you're asking the wrong question. You don't need to find a solution to force on other people who don't agree with you. We have enough of that going on and it has caused nothing but problems. The question you should be asking is how do you adapt to a situation where others may not share your ideas about leaving other people alone. If you seek to solve the problem of other people not leaving you alone by forcing your ideas on other people, you've become part of the problem, not the solution.

I consider conformity to be a thing with a proper place and proper times , it is most proper when it is volentary , forced conformity is so unAmeircan it ought to be avoided in any circumstance short of deadly necessity.

Good. I'm glad we agree on that.

[_JS]

The problem with your point of view Sirs is that it is not found in this article. There's nothing reckless being said here. You simply have been completely unable to demonstrate how this article is not against diversity.

Actually, I do believe I have.  You've simply concluded that it can't possibly be accurate

Sirs, by all means use the text of the article you've provided here to show us how the article is not against diversity.

I've provided some quotes that make me think that it is explicitly against diversity, but if you can show me either explictly or implictly in the context of this article that it is not against diversity, I'll be the first to apologise.

[sirs]

Actually, I do believe I have.  You've simply concluded that it can't possibly be accurate

Sirs, by all means use the text of the article you've provided here to show us how the article is not against diversity.
[/quote]

One last time, it's not against diversity in how diversity does enhance American culture.  It's against diversity simply for the sake of advocating diversity at the expense of American culture.  I don't know how many other ways I can say the same thing, and in what I read out of Sowell's piece

[Universe Prince]

I do believe we have the continued diverging ideas of what diversity means, the way Sowell is using it.  Meaning, if you have a negative perception of Sowell, prior to even reading his piece, you're going to assume he's anti-ANY diversity, regardless of how the term being used.

Um, no. This is not about Thomas Sowell. This is about Mr. Sowell's words. The man directly and without subtlety said there has been no evidence "given to verify the wonderful benefits [diversity] is assumed to produce." He also said, "Despite much gushing about how we should 'celebrate diversity,' America's great achievement has not been in having diversity but in taming its dangers that have run amok in many other countries. Americans have by no means escaped diversity's oppressions and violence, but we have reined them in." Please note the lack of any positive connotations to diversity in Mr. Sowell's description of the situation. Mr. Sowell himself has defined diversity as something dangerous that must be contained and something without benefits. At no point in his column does Mr. Sowell mitigate his comments by talking about the American "melting pot" or about meaning just diversity for the sake of diversity. His entire column is entirely negative toward diversity period. And so far, Sirs, you have not been able to point anything among Mr. Sowell's words that indicates otherwise. Yes, you have talked about your own views and about what you believe Mr. Sowell "really" meant. But none of that changes what Mr. Sowell actually said. Since you, Sirs, are not Mr. Sowell, I have to take not your optimistic interpretation but Mr. Sowell's words as what Mr. Sowell means.

[sirs]

I do believe we have the continued diverging ideas of what diversity means, the way Sowell is using it.  Meaning, if you have a negative perception of Sowell, prior to even reading his piece, you're going to assume he's anti-ANY diversity, regardless of how the term being used.

This is not about Thomas Sowell. This is about Mr. Sowell's words. The man directly and without subtlety said there has been no evidence "given to verify the wonderful benefits [diversity] is assumed to produce." ....Please note the lack of any positive connotations to diversity in Mr. Sowell's description of the situation. Mr. Sowell himself has defined diversity as something dangerous that must be contained and something without benefits. .... His entire column is entirely negative toward diversity period. And so far, Sirs, you have not been able to point anything among Mr. Sowell's words that indicates otherwise

Well that's 1 opinion, that i'm afraid I don't share, as I've read the piece many a time, and it comes across as specfically referencing the negative of diveristy simply for the sake of diversity.  Yes, he criticises diversity, but thru-out the piece appears to connect that criticism to the idea of we must be a diverse country or else, not simply a blanket criticism of diversity.  At least that's how I read it.  You & Js obviously read it differently

[larry]

Is it your assertion then that our society, American society, is not free? America is not the land of the free but the land of the rule of law?

America is a nation govern by ratified legislation. All legislations are subject to, amendment and repeal. All states have the same constitutional process, but have individual constitutional statues. So, America is a country that makes up the law as we go along. Those who seek to deny the people the right to change existing laws, illegally deny the people the right of diversity. Due Process is the one constant, if we amend or repeal due process we no longer have a democracy.

[BT]

Is it your assertion then that our society, American society, is not free? America is not the land of the free but the land of the rule of law?

Yep.

Define free and then see how well we stack up.

[Universe Prince]

Well that's 1 opinion, that i'm afraid I don't share, as I've read the piece many a time, and it comes across as specfically referencing the negative of diveristy simply for the sake of diversity.

Can you find me that specific comment where he qualifies the rest of his comments as being specifically about diversity for diversity's sake? Because I can't find it. I cannot find any place in that column where he says anything that indicates or implies that he was only criticizing diversity for diversity's sake. So how do you come to that conclusion?

Yes, he criticises diversity, but thru-out the piece appears to connect that criticism to the idea of we must be a diverse country or else, not simply a blanket criticism of diversity.  At least that's how I read it.  You & Js obviously read it differently

I read it as it was. I read it as Mr. Sowell's words being what he meant to say, not meaning something contrary to what he was actually saying. And frankly, I just don't know how the column could be said to appear not to be a blanket criticism of diversity. At no point did Mr. Sowell say anything about diversity that was not negative. He did not qualify his comments in any way. Again, I am taking what he said as what he meant to say, and you have not given me any reason not to do so.

[Universe Prince]

America is a nation govern by ratified legislation. All legislations are subject to, amendment and repeal. All states have the same constitutional process, but have individual constitutional statues. So, America is a country that makes up the law as we go along. Those who seek to deny the people the right to change existing laws, illegally deny the people the right of diversity. Due Process is the one constant, if we amend or repeal due process we no longer have a democracy.

I don't recall disputing the notion that we have laws, Larry, and I'm a little confused as to what, exactly, is your point. Would you care to clarify?

[Universe Prince]

Is it your assertion then that our society, American society, is not free? America is not the land of the free but the land of the rule of law?

Yep.

Define free and then see how well we stack up.

I was not aware that being a nation of laws made us not free. Sounds like something an anarchist might say. Anyway, by free I meant the basic meaning of free in a political context, i.e. not enslaved, having liberty to exercise our rights. Are you suggesting that we are enslaved or that we do not have liberty to exercise our rights? Granted there are some intrusions on liberty, but we are still basically a free society, as I understand the situation. If you think we are not a free society, I would very much like to see your reasoning as to why.

[BT]

If you think we are not a free society, I would very much like to see your reasoning as to why

I didn't say that. I simply said we are a nation of laws. And those laws limit absolute freedom, thus we are not a "society of freedom", which i believe was your original claim.