PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Anthony on April 23, 2020, 05:29:39 AM
-
I am not a proponent of FORCED DIVERSITY. The U.S. became diverse through LEGAL Immigration by people coming here to work hard, produce and succeed. Not leech off the taxpayer through Government programs, and other ways to scam money from "the system" through Identity Theft and other fraudulent means. The LEFT'S obsession with "diversity" over the past several decades is purely to bring in people dependent on government that will vote DEMOCRAT. They use the excuse that these people have been downtrodden due to their color, race, ethnicity, gender, etc.
Good article on why Diversity IS NOT our strength.
Diversity for the sake of diversity has become its own end. We want to know if student bodies, government jobs, or the composition of football teams display enough diversity, or at least the right kind of diversity.
Suppose we make diversity our first principle of worthiness and public order. We judge everything in its light. Our motto then should not be “E pluribus unum,” but simply “E pluribus plures” —not “from many one,” but “from many, many.” Diversity without qualification, without attention to the appropriateness of this principle to political life, is a dangerous doctrine. Under the pretensions of justice, it causes unnecessary turmoil and confusion in the body politic.
We can make certain obvious distinctions among the many people who compose our public life. One division is between “white” and “black.” We can, so we surmise, easily count how many of each type are in a given organization, provided that this distinction is considered relevant.
If, for example, the relevant factor we want to know is how many people in the world are over seven feet tall or under four feet tall, diversities like white and black, Jew and Gentile, are irrelevant. We cannot demand more “diversity” if, say, most of those over seven feet are in fact males, or if they are from certain African tribes, or from Russia. In this example, height is the “diversity” factor considered above everything else.
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/355899-against-diversity-for-diversitys-sake
-
The biggest single strength that American companies have over competitors in Asia is diversity.
Americans can design products that are used all over the world, in languages spoken all over the world, right-to-left languages, currencies, number and date formats from all over.
I have a small business and we design products that are used world-wide. More than 50% of our sales are international. This is similar to most other companies that are primarily design-based.
Even as a small business of 30 people, I have people on my staff who can speak Russian, French, German, Hebrew, Hindu, Chinese, Italian and Spanish. They're all American by the way (except one Canadian guy). We didn't specifically seek out for it, it's just the pool of talent in this area.
Because of that, I know for example that:
- Cyrillic letters are sometimes 2 characters on one platform and 1 character on another. AFAIK we're the only product in our class that handles this correctly, and one of the only ones that sell in Russia.
- We know that French people like French diacritics but like using English shortcuts for them. Go figure.
- German is verbose. Like really verbose. You can't design something in English and then translate to German - you have to start off in German. (Clint Eastwood Firefox reference, anyone?)
- Lakh. Or even just metric for that matter.
- Women have long nails. Buttons that are comfortable to press for men, is sometimes impossible to press for a women.
- And countless other things that come up every day
This stuff to us is second nature because of our diverse staff. For a small business in China this stuff wouldn't just not be second nature, it would be virtually impossible. If we had to hire specifically for this, there's no way we could afford to do that either. But here it's just the nature of having a diverse population.
Why on earth would we actively be arguing for the US to give up this HUGE advantage?
-
Even as a small business of 30 people, I have people on my staff who can speak Russian, French, German, Hebrew, Hindu, Chinese, Italian and Spanish. They're all American by the way (except one Canadian guy). We didn't specifically seek out for it, it's just the pool of talent in this area.
Does anyone speak English as their first language?
-
The biggest single strength that American companies have over competitors in Asia is diversity.
Americans can design products that are used all over the world, in languages spoken all over the world, right-to-left languages, currencies, number and date formats from all over.
I have a small business and we design products that are used world-wide. More than 50% of our sales are international. This is similar to most other companies that are primarily design-based.
Even as a small business of 30 people, I have people on my staff who can speak Russian, French, German, Hebrew, Hindu, Chinese, Italian and Spanish. They're all American by the way (except one Canadian guy). We didn't specifically seek out for it, it's just the pool of talent in this area.
Because of that, I know for example that:
- Cyrillic letters are sometimes 2 characters on one platform and 1 character on another. AFAIK we're the only product in our class that handles this correctly, and one of the only ones that sell in Russia.
- We know that French people like French diacritics but like using English shortcuts for them. Go figure.
- German is verbose. Like really verbose. You can't design something in English and then translate to German - you have to start off in German. (Clint Eastwood Firefox reference, anyone?)
- Lakh. Or even just metric for that matter.
- Women have long nails. Buttons that are comfortable to press for men, is sometimes impossible to press for a women.
- And countless other things that come up every day
This stuff to us is second nature because of our diverse staff. For a small business in China this stuff wouldn't just not be second nature, it would be virtually impossible. If we had to hire specifically for this, there's no way we could afford to do that either. But here it's just the nature of having a diverse population.
Why on earth would we actively be arguing for the US to give up this HUGE advantage?
Were you FORCED to do all of that? (I didn't think so).
I don't think anyone is arguing to give up diversity. The argument is to give up forced diversity. Diversity should not be a tool to buy votes.
-
Were you FORCED to do all of that? (I didn't think so).
I don't think anyone is arguing to give up diversity. The argument is to give up forced diversity. Diversity should not be a tool to buy votes.
Exactly! Well said.
-
Were you FORCED to do all of that? (I didn't think so).
I don't think anyone is arguing to give up diversity. The argument is to give up forced diversity. Diversity should not be a tool to buy votes.
Ok, TBH I don't actually know what that article is ranting about. I thought it's about SB826 initially, but it's too old for that.
Let's assume they're complaining about Harvard's diversity program, which was in vogue at that time.
If your institute for higher learning is a glorified Youtube video standing in front of a class making students memorize and regurgitate knowledge without any critical thinking, then sure, diversity serves no direct benefit apart from the students who benefit for being selected.
If however it is an active class where students communicate with each other, contribute to the class, perform projects together and learn from each other respectively, then the entire class gets a benefits if everybody didn't come from exactly the same background.
While I agree there are many institutes that fall into the first category, it should also be an option for a private school to select a more diverse class makeup if they see fit to do so. There is no "right" to attend Harvard.