Honest question for liberals about diversity/multiculturalism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Still no answer on what's been "taken away?"

Girls only restrooms?

Not taken away because you never had it before. Trans people used to use the bathrooms of the gender they identified with long before all of this freakout and hoopla and you didn't know about it, you didn't care. But now their right to continue doing so is being taken away for no particularly good reason whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question, I think racial and ethnic diversity is very beneficial. Being a native here, I find it strange that people from other cities have had no exposure to people from many backgrounds. It is like they are limited. I think dissatisfaction comes into play to answer OP's question when it is economic "diversity" in play, like when half your elementary school is FARMS, because that brings challenges.

In other words it interferes with their ability to ignore the fact that not everyone is as well off and that challenges do indeed exist for many people...
That inconvenient reality stuff is apparently too much for some people...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still no answer on what's been "taken away?"

So loud and vocal one minute, yet complete silence now...

Let’s see. Here are some things that I believe we are losing:

1. Tolerance on college campuses. In the name of “diversity,” colleges now have “safe spaces” for people to go to “relax” and “express their ideas.” But, of course, those spaces are only safe if you hold the same liberal views that colleges teach. Conservative speakers are rarely invited to college campuses.

2. Tolerance for people who hold different views. If one believes in traditional marriage or gender specific locker rooms, they are dismissed as homophobic or bigoted.

3. Religious tolerance. If a baker chooses not to make a cake or cupcakes for a gay wedding on religious grounds, that baker is sued and is in danger of losing his/her livelihood.

4. The concept that all people should be respected and not all points of view should be respected. Self-explanatory.

5. The concept that the best person for the job should be the one hired. Due to affirmative action, the strongest candidate for a job may very well NOT be the one that is hired.

[Anonymous]

I think that a lot of people are OK with different cultures/races/etc. as long as such are "like them" in the sense that they value education, have advanced degrees, etc. So they would be with their kids going to a 50% Hispanic school if say, those Hispanics were the children of doctors and lawyers, but certainly would never send their kids to a school comprised of working class, ESOL students.

I know many who claim to be on board with diversity, think Trump is a racist, yet would absolutely never even entertain the idea of living somewhere like South Arlington or PG or Silver Spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question, I think racial and ethnic diversity is very beneficial. Being a native here, I find it strange that people from other cities have had no exposure to people from many backgrounds. It is like they are limited. I think dissatisfaction comes into play to answer OP's question when it is economic "diversity" in play, like when half your elementary school is FARMS, because that brings challenges.

In other words it interferes with their ability to ignore the fact that not everyone is as well off and that challenges do indeed exist for many people...
That inconvenient reality stuff is apparently too much for some people...

Another smug, condescending, righteous, self-important response. Aren't you so special that you are so much better than other people because you don't do this! It must be wonderful to be so much better than others!

[Anonymous]

I am in favor of real diversity. I am against "false" diversity that wants to make the world like a coke commercial. Real diversity knows that there are always challenges when different cultures come together, and that politeness is key to helping each be comfortable with the other. False diversity screams and yells alot, and takes away valuable time in the press in our minds with things like bathrooms and whether one should say native american or american indian, which should instead be focused on the real problems that poor people face, some of the real problems being culture specific (for example opium use amoung poor rural people of European descent).

These modern "diversity" screamers are like Jonathan Edwards screaming about sin. They make a lot of noise, but do not touch any of the real problems of our modern world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question, I think racial and ethnic diversity is very beneficial. Being a native here, I find it strange that people from other cities have had no exposure to people from many backgrounds. It is like they are limited. I think dissatisfaction comes into play to answer OP's question when it is economic "diversity" in play, like when half your elementary school is FARMS, because that brings challenges.

In other words it interferes with their ability to ignore the fact that not everyone is as well off and that challenges do indeed exist for many people...
That inconvenient reality stuff is apparently too much for some people...

Another smug, condescending, righteous, self-important response. Aren't you so special that you are so much better than other people because you don't do this! It must be wonderful to be so much better than others!

What? Aren't you so smug and special and self important that you think you can self-righteously call people out for... what exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question, I think racial and ethnic diversity is very beneficial. Being a native here, I find it strange that people from other cities have had no exposure to people from many backgrounds. It is like they are limited. I think dissatisfaction comes into play to answer OP's question when it is economic "diversity" in play, like when half your elementary school is FARMS, because that brings challenges.

In other words it interferes with their ability to ignore the fact that not everyone is as well off and that challenges do indeed exist for many people...
That inconvenient reality stuff is apparently too much for some people...

Another smug, condescending, righteous, self-important response. Aren't you so special that you are so much better than other people because you don't do this! It must be wonderful to be so much better than others!

What? Aren't you so smug and special and self important that you think you can self-righteously call people out for... what exactly?

For saying that "inconvenient reality stuff is apparently too much for some people". Really? You really have so much contempt for these people? That you think they are disconnected from reality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am in favor of real diversity. I am against "false" diversity that wants to make the world like a coke commercial. Real diversity knows that there are always challenges when different cultures come together, and that politeness is key to helping each be comfortable with the other. False diversity screams and yells alot, and takes away valuable time in the press in our minds with things like bathrooms and whether one should say native american or american indian, which should instead be focused on the real problems that poor people face, some of the real problems being culture specific (for example opium use amoung poor rural people of European descent).

These modern "diversity" screamers are like Jonathan Edwards screaming about sin. They make a lot of noise, but do not touch any of the real problems of our modern world.

The progressives aren't the ones yelling and screaming about bathrooms. That's been entirely the conservatives, who are as though they've suddenly woken up from a coma to realize that in all of their years sometimes the guy in the stall next to them in the men's room hasn't really been a guy, and now they are acting as though this is all new and sudden and thrust upon them to the point where they feel the need to rush out and lobby their state legislatures to pass laws and to have "bathroom enforcers" checking people for gender....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am in favor of real diversity. I am against "false" diversity that wants to make the world like a coke commercial. Real diversity knows that there are always challenges when different cultures come together, and that politeness is key to helping each be comfortable with the other. False diversity screams and yells alot, and takes away valuable time in the press in our minds with things like bathrooms and whether one should say native american or american indian, which should instead be focused on the real problems that poor people face, some of the real problems being culture specific (for example opium use amoung poor rural people of European descent).

These modern "diversity" screamers are like Jonathan Edwards screaming about sin. They make a lot of noise, but do not touch any of the real problems of our modern world.

The progressives aren't the ones yelling and screaming about bathrooms. That's been entirely the conservatives, who are as though they've suddenly woken up from a coma to realize that in all of their years sometimes the guy in the stall next to them in the men's room hasn't really been a guy, and now they are acting as though this is all new and sudden and thrust upon them to the point where they feel the need to rush out and lobby their state legislatures to pass laws and to have "bathroom enforcers" checking people for gender....

The Conservatives would not have reacted had it not been for Obama deciding that he needed to add to his legacy.

[Anonymous]

This is a pretty detailed article on the problems with some kinds of "diversity" http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/23/how-anti-white-rhetoric-is-fueling-white-nationalism/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am in favor of real diversity. I am against "false" diversity that wants to make the world like a coke commercial. Real diversity knows that there are always challenges when different cultures come together, and that politeness is key to helping each be comfortable with the other. False diversity screams and yells alot, and takes away valuable time in the press in our minds with things like bathrooms and whether one should say native american or american indian, which should instead be focused on the real problems that poor people face, some of the real problems being culture specific (for example opium use amoung poor rural people of European descent).

These modern "diversity" screamers are like Jonathan Edwards screaming about sin. They make a lot of noise, but do not touch any of the real problems of our modern world.

The progressives aren't the ones yelling and screaming about bathrooms. That's been entirely the conservatives, who are as though they've suddenly woken up from a coma to realize that in all of their years sometimes the guy in the stall next to them in the men's room hasn't really been a guy, and now they are acting as though this is all new and sudden and thrust upon them to the point where they feel the need to rush out and lobby their state legislatures to pass laws and to have "bathroom enforcers" checking people for gender....

The Conservatives would not have reacted had it not been for Obama deciding that he needed to add to his legacy.

Facts are hard, I know...but that is not the order of events. NC passed a law related to bathrooms, and several other states are talking about following suit. In response, Obama amended Title IX rules to include bathroom privileges for transexual students who would otherwise face discrimination under these new state laws. The entire bathroom debacle started with conservatives.

[Anonymous]

The progressives aren't the ones yelling and screaming about bathrooms. That's been entirely the conservatives, who are as though they've suddenly woken up from a coma to realize that in all of their years sometimes the guy in the stall next to them in the men's room hasn't really been a guy, and now they are acting as though this is all new and sudden and thrust upon them to the point where they feel the need to rush out and lobby their state legislatures to pass laws and to have "bathroom enforcers" checking people for gender....

No, it started when families would not accept a private bathroom as an option. It started when Charlotte passed a law similar to Obama's directive. The others laws were in reaction.

And, to the poster who said that trans were already using the restrooms--okay--then why was a directive necessary to change it. We now have a directive which allows non-trans males to go into a girls' bathroom. There is no definition to the transgender attached to the directive. This means that any pervert can go into the restroom of their choice. And, I do not mean the trans people.

It also means that biological boys can bump your daughter off of a girls' team. It means they can compete as females. Win scholarships. Title IX which demanded that girls' sports also be included in public schools was hard comeby. Now it means nothing.

No one thought about the unintended consequences when O put this out. Obama never considers unintended consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still no answer on what's been "taken away?"

So loud and vocal one minute, yet complete silence now...

Let’s see. Here are some things that I believe we are losing:

1. Tolerance on college campuses. In the name of “diversity,” colleges now have “safe spaces” for people to go to “relax” and “express their ideas.” But, of course, those spaces are only safe if you hold the same liberal views that colleges teach. Conservative speakers are rarely invited to college campuses.

2. Tolerance for people who hold different views. If one believes in traditional marriage or gender specific locker rooms, they are dismissed as homophobic or bigoted.

3. Religious tolerance. If a baker chooses not to make a cake or cupcakes for a gay wedding on religious grounds, that baker is sued and is in danger of losing his/her livelihood.

4. The concept that all people should be respected and not all points of view should be respected. Self-explanatory.

5. The concept that the best person for the job should be the one hired. Due to affirmative action, the strongest candidate for a job may very well NOT be the one that is hired.

1.) What, we should be tolerant of bigotry? As for this notion of liberal colleges, sorry but there's no such thing as "liberal calculus" or "liberal physics" or "liberal organic chemistry." But as to why conservatives don't get invited to colleges, perhaps it's because they want to tell us factually invalid things like "climate change is a hoax."

2.) I can't think of any particularly valid reason why we should be tolerant of bigotry and discrimination.

3.) Sorry but there is absolutely nothing in the Bible or in any religious teachings that says you can't or shouldn't bake cakes or cupcakes for gay people. Stop twisting religion as cover for your bigotry.

4.) Why should all points of view be respected? It's established, independently verifiable and scientifically sound fact that the earth is not flat and that it's more than 6000 years old and that man did not live with dinosaurs. Facts trump opinions. And sorry but scientific facts also trump old fairy tales written in religious books.

5.) Presupposes that somewhere there are these vast hordes of poor abused white job applicants who all got cheated out of jobs by minorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The progressives aren't the ones yelling and screaming about bathrooms. That's been entirely the conservatives, who are as though they've suddenly woken up from a coma to realize that in all of their years sometimes the guy in the stall next to them in the men's room hasn't really been a guy, and now they are acting as though this is all new and sudden and thrust upon them to the point where they feel the need to rush out and lobby their state legislatures to pass laws and to have "bathroom enforcers" checking people for gender....

No, it started when families would not accept a private bathroom as an option. It started when Charlotte passed a law similar to Obama's directive. The others laws were in reaction.

And, to the poster who said that trans were already using the restrooms--okay--then why was a directive necessary to change it. We now have a directive which allows non-trans males to go into a girls' bathroom. There is no definition to the transgender attached to the directive. This means that any pervert can go into the restroom of their choice. And, I do not mean the trans people.

It also means that biological boys can bump your daughter off of a girls' team. It means they can compete as females. Win scholarships. Title IX which demanded that girls' sports also be included in public schools was hard comeby. Now it means nothing.

No one thought about the unintended consequences when O put this out. Obama never considers unintended consequences.

Um, sorry but there weren't any "private bathrooms" that would have solved anything for trans people.

Trans people were already using bathrooms but occasionally someone would give them a hard time about it. And then North Carolina passed a law forbidding it outright, now forcing girls who had gone male to march into the girls' bathroom complete with beard and all.... You don't think that's going to freak some people out?

And by the way, your glorious North Carolina law does absolutely nothing about perverts and wouldn't have protected kids against Dennis Hastert.