this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
1109 points (96.8% liked)
Microblog Memes
5467 readers
10 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Except the vast majority of people who use "diversity is our strength" as a slogan are focused on superficial "diversity", while ironically still demanding all remain in ideological lockstep; no diversity of that kind tolerated within the 'in-group', that's for sure, lol.
There's much more true, pragmatically 'useful' diversity in, for example, a group of ten white males whose values and views cross the political etc. spectrums, than in a group of ten people of all different races, half male half female, who all have the exact same political views and values as each other.
The Olympics is about 'blindly' rewarding the best of the best, regardless of those superficial characteristics, so the "diversity is our strength" ideologues don't get to 'claim' it, its premise directly contradicts those people's values--they'd rather a job position be filled by someone who meets a sex or race quota, than simply hiring whoever is best for the job, etc.
I don't believe you.
It's an extremely obvious truth. Whenever that ideological group either praises the existence of diversity or criticizes the lack of it, they're always talking about something superficial, like race or sex. I defy you to find me a single example of someone using that phrase, who is defining "diversity" as a variety in ideological/political/value differences. You know, something that actually makes people different in a meaningful way.
Difference in origin, sex, and culture lead to differences in experience and views. An all-male group trying to make decisions that affect women is going to do a worse job compared to a mixed sex group because they lack insight into issues facing women. Same for race.
There are situations in which diversity of sex or race can lead to worse decision-making than a seemingly more homogeneous group that has diverse political and ideological views, as you say, but favoring the former isn't a bad way to increase effectiveness. The alternative is likely an intrusive and difficult investigation to determine individual opinions and experience.
I feel like your argument doesn't fully disprove OP's claim.
OP mentioned specifically race and gender as "superficial" categories. You say that origin, sex and culture lead to different views. I agree with you, but I would say that origin and culture are specifically profound differences. I would also say that indeed people from different race and genders, but same origin, culture (and class status, I would add) can offer way less diversity than people from same race and gender but different origin, culture and class status.
The fact is, given history of our society, there is quite a good correlation between people having different race and gender and people having different origin, culture and class status. It is not guaranteed, but it's a decent proxy, so I would say that until society is different, it's still going to be the preferred option to have diversity via such proxy. In abstract though I agree with OP, if one day gender equality is finally achieved and society bridged the gap left by colonialism, racial exploitation etc., categories such as race and gender are not going to be providing diversity.
Completely different matter is what you mentioned about having to take decisions that affect other categories of people. Here I fully agree with you, but I guess it's a separate discussion and one that should be focused on the categories of people who are going to be impacted (which is not listed to gender and race, obviously. Say rural people, disable people, etc.).
Thanks for the reply.
I didn't intend to fully disprove their claim so much as point out that diversity of appearance is being used as a proxy for diversity of experience and views. Unless I'm missing something, I think you essentially re-stated and elaborated on what I was driving at.
A white family growing up in New England are much more likely to differ in perspectives/values/beliefs from a white family growing up in Appalachia, than from the black family that lives down the block from them.
Instead of acting like the superficial differences automatically result in the differences that constitute actual diversity, why not seek the actual diversity directly?
The answer is: because they're NOT seeking that kind of diversity, they want and obviously enforce ideological conformity in the 'in-group', and to create the outward appearance of diversity by mixing up the incidence of the superficial traits.
Yes, of course many people are virtue signaling. But measuring true diversity of opinion and experience is difficult and time consuming, so people use race and sex as a proxy because it often does lead to diversity of opinion and experience.
Red lights don't reflect the true state of an intersection, but when the light is red it is a bad idea to drive. Similarly, a group of men and women of several races may have all been raised in the same neighborhood, but it's unlikely.
In other words, 'true diversity takes more work to ascertain, so let's use racist/sexist/etc. stereotypes as a half-assed shortcut that perpetuates those stereotypes as a nice little toxic side effect'.
Yeah, that's not okay.
I don't know if you realize just how horrid this analogy is. A red light is a feature that is deliberately designed to signify the state of the intersection, it exists explicitly for this purpose. To think of things like race and sex in this way is actually grotesque.
I disagree both with your characterization of my position as well as your assertion that it is "grotesque".
Skin color and sex can be used as indicators for hidden, hard to ascertain traits. It may be racist to assume that the indicator perfectly predicts those traits, or that skin color and sex predict hidden traits when they do not, or to assume that sex and race cause the traits to occur when they don't. But it's not racist or sexist to make assumptions based on race or sex if there is a real correlation.
Sickle cell anemia is much more prevalent in blacks than in whites. It's not racist to suggest that blacks should be tested at higher rates than other communities.
Women experience more sexual assault than men do, and the vast majority of the perpetrators are men. It's not sexist to assume that a woman who is assaulted was likely assaulted by a man.
If we created some sort of viral genetically engineered cure for SCD tomorrow, race would stop being a predictor of that particular trait. If we found a way to bring male sexual assault down to the same rate as female sexual assault, continuing to assume the sex of a predator would be incorrect.
And obviously, in legal or scientific contexts, we need hard evidence of the underlying traits themselves rather than assumptions based on sex or race.
Assumptions of this sort can be racist or sexist when the person making them is motivated to come to a particular conclusion, but making assumptions is not inherently bigoted.
In the original scenario, the assumption is that a group of people of various sexes and races have had different life experiences. There are relatively few downsides to this assumption. If you're wrong, then you've mistakenly formed a group that is slightly less "diverse" than you hoped for. The upside is that you don't need a full biography from everyone involved in the group in order to promote diversity of experience and opinions.
To be clear, I find most manufactured diversity to be asinine, and I think that it can certainly be taken too far. That doesn't mean that the actual assumption is incorrect.
I use the phrase diversity is strength all the time, and I don't give a shit what color someone is. My team can be identical skin tones but I want people with different perspectives and backgrounds which leads to them having different subconscious filters. My field is information analysis and if you have the same subconscious filter as me you're useless to me, I might as well ask myself what I think. I need people who are different than me to bounce ideas off of, none of us have the whole picture. It's extra noticeable in my field but applies everywhere else as well.
Differences like race/sex being only "superficial" and therefore unimportant is a disingenuous strawman. These attributes are also associated with substantial differences in experience, epistemologies, and even ideologies (white feminists can differ in ideology from black and Asian feminists), all of which can productively contribute to more and better solutions than if those diversities were not present.
Ideological diversity while certainly beneficial, can also hamper collaboration. Especially when one ideology dehumanized or embodies an existential threat to other members of the team. Some shared ideology around shared humanity and collaboration is needed right. Relatedly, a single ideology amongst one group can also be a point of productive focus. For example anti-abortion movements or abolishing slavery.
The makeup of the best team for the best jobs depends on the project as well, whether it's a political science textbook, a cross-cultural advertising campaign, or a piece of universal design. A team with some diversity along ideological, cultural, gendered lines while also sharing commonalities can be better equipped to tackle a range of problems by mitigating glaring gaps
I don't know why you're drawing this line between ideology, race, and gender. Shit is intersectional.
Here is your example. We have whole institutions dedicated to diversity of ideology. It's called Academia. Diversity of ideology is the OG diversity. It's the vanilla default status quo of diversity.
Nothing is stopping one from seeking these differences directly, and it's literally bigoted and prejudicial to say "I know this person is going to have a different perspective because their skin is this color/they are this sex". You're literally advocating for stereotyping people according to those immutable characteristics. Disgusting.
I thought diversity was strength. Guess it's instead "diversity specifically of the types I define is strength, provided it's my unique definition of strength (read: intellectual homogeneity)".
More thinly-veiled bigotry, essentially saying that race and gender determine ideology. Gross.
Nice try, but no. That's really not what I was saying. The conversation is about how environmental context (culture, history, positionality) influences experiences and how individuals with different experiences can contribute uniquely.
Diversity has its strengths and weaknesses depending on context. For example ethno nationalism can lead to powerful states of a kind, but as an ideology it is inherently oppressive and dehumanizing, so I'd argue it's ethically wrong. Being a particular race or gender is never ethically wrong, but ideologies certainly can be.
Again, deliberately misinterpreting the statement. Nobody is talking about race/sex being deterministic of ideology and your little trap conflating social groups and individual identity is transparent and silly.
You fail troll.
https://lemmy.world/post/18146024?scrollToComments=true