Views from the Abyss #25: Diversity

Q. 'Progressives' often talk of a need for increased diversity. Is this a good or a bad thing?

This is closer to ideal

A. It rather depends. The problem you will frequently run into when listening to anything that a 'progressive' says, is that a pinch of salt really isn't enough. Everything is doublethink, and this is no exception.

Yesterday we talked about motte and bailey rhetoric, and the unspoken 'benefits' of diversity appear to emanate from a frankly baffling application of this same line of reasoning.

Before that though, it's important to understand some of the different kinds of diversity people are talking about when they bring it up as a social value. Some are good and some are bad, as you'll see below.

• Diversity of Thought & Ideas
Absolutely this is a good thing. This is the cornerstone of intellectual exchange. All ideas should be open to discussion. All ideas should be subject to scrutiny. Any idea can be dismissed if it doesn't hold up on its own merits.

• Diversity of Aesthetic
To an extent, great! Artistic works, architecture, clothing styles, foods, the more diversity the better.

• Diversity of Cultural Norms
Here it starts to get a little grey. Religion, public behaviour, there's going to be a degree of diversity present regardless of the population, but a general sense of compliance to established social norms is generally considered to be a positive adhesive force in unifying society. Should people be given a free pass from such compliance just because their own culture doesn't share the same norms? It's a complicated issue, but the answer is fuck no.

• Diversity of Morality
No. Absolutely not. Unacceptable. Just because in your country, it's normal to verbally and physically harass women on the street, cut off bits of people's bodies at birth, throw homosexuals off buildings, behead people for their religion, and begin kickstarter campaigns for products that defy the laws of physics, doesn't mean it's acceptable here. Ever. No excuses.

I'm certain that when presented like this, each of these should be broadly self evident and difficult to disagree strongly with. And that's when the bailey begins. Let's see how these work in practice as demonstrated by 'progressives'.

• Diversity of Thought & Ideas
Hell no, I can't even. Trigger warning bitch, I'm off to the safe space to pull the fire alarm of wrong think.

'Progressives' tend to be somewhat opposed to this kind of diversity.

• Diversity of Aesthetic
Did you just culturally appropriate that poor Mexican man's burrito in exchange for your oppressive imperial coin?

When 'progressive' rhetoric is taken literally, segregation is strength, and true diversity lies in nobody being able to understand what the hell anybody else is saying. Because we'd all be forced to speak our own languages.

• Diversity of Cultural Norms & Morality (conflated for much needed brevity)
By all means, please! I want you to come and drop your goat from my parish bell-tower!

Not only do people from other nations have a right to come to our country and shit in the middle of the road, throw homosexuals off buildings, cut off pieces of newborn babies, and gang rape women with impunity, they should be actively encouraged to do so.

Yes, this is what the 'progressives' actually advocate for when they talk about a need for diversity.

But to what end? What could they possibly have to gain from this?

One possibility is that the destruction of civilisation is their goal—that would certainly be consistent with other 'progressive' rhetoric. There's always talk of revolution, destroying the establishments, smashing the patriarchy and ending gender roles, doing away with the nuclear family, the list goes on. Evidently human civilisation which has somehow fluked its way through tens of thousands of years of progress is so badly broken that only its complete annihilation can save it.

Another possibility is hubris—in this case, the belief that they genuinely have all the answers, and that the kind of world they're advocating for is going to be an actual improvement. Ideology does have the power to blind one to certain realities, and the reactions to the new year Cologne attacks certainly suggest that the blind are leading the blind, who are also leading them in return.

Or it could simply be a case of taking their half-baked stances to logical extremes for the sake of consistency, rather than travelling the slightly more challenging road of listening to other ideas and re-evaluating their own opinions. That would certainly explain their averseness to any kind of diversity of thought & ideas.

But whatever the reason is, do not be fooled by their rhetoric, for the road to hell is paved by people trying to convince 'friends' on The Facebook of the virtuosity of their good intentions.