The Modern American left. "Diversity Makes America Great"

[AngryCanadian]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHn5TjyXgAEZ8bB.jpg

This is what the 2020 liberals truly believe.

And there's this.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHl3ZmKXYAAXIXM.jpg:large

[AuH20]

Diversity is code for big, uncouth government. They can keep their diversity.

[CaptUSA]

Nothing creates diversity like freedom.

A better way to put this for these dummies is, "Freedom makes America diverse."


You know, since it's so important to them.

[Anti Federalist]

Nothing creates diversity like freedom.

A better way to put this for these dummies is, "Freedom makes America diverse."

You know, since it's so important to them.

I was coming in to say something very similar.

Freedom, individual and property rights makes America great.

[Raginfridus]

If diversity was truly the prog modus operandi, they wouldn't be homogeneous, would they? No, of course not. They're just another granfaloon, no different from white-supremacists.

[Ender]

Diversity Makes America Great!

Except when:
I don't agree with it.
You offend me.
I don't like your haircut.

[Zippyjuan]

Just say "no" to immigrants. Unless they were my ancestors. The country was great until those (French, German, Irish, Jewish, Italian, English, Japanese--- insert group here--) started coming.

Lack of diversity leads to inbreeding.

[Anti Federalist]

Lack of diversity leads to inbreeding.

I know, them inbred Chinamen, dumb as a bag of rocks, amirite?

:rolleyes:

[Raginfridus]

The country was great...

Lack of diversity leads to inbreeding.Was that before or after the Iroquois genocided the Erie?

[Ender]

Was that before or after the Iroquois genocided the Erie?

Kahkwa is the correct name for the so-called "Erie" and the Kahkwa was part of the Iroquois. The main war between them was supposedly caused by the French with some impelling lies about the Kahkwas to the Iroquois.

Again, history is always retold by the winners, who were the French in this case.

[Swordsmyth]

Kahkwa is the correct name for the so-called "Erie" and the Kahkwa was part of the Iroquois. The main war between them was supposedly caused by the French with some impelling lies about the Kahkwas to the Iroquois.

Again, history is always retold by the winners, who were the French in this case.

The main point still stands, the American Indians fought wars to steal land and exterminate one another long before the Europeans joined in.
Kentucky was "The Dark And Bloody Ground".

[Danke]

I know, them inbred Chinamen, dumb as a bag of rocks, amirite?

:rolleyes:

Only Diversity of skin melatonin counts, not ideas or opinions.

[Raginfridus]

Again, history is always retold by the winners, who were the French in this case.Absolutely, but there were lots of winners in America, before the French got involved.

[Raginfridus]

Only Diversity of skin melatonin counts, not ideas or opinions.http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/56b3d2402e5265bb008b5050-1024-768/nicole%20sanchez-diversity-training.jpg

[Ender]

Absolutely, but there were lots of winners in America, before the French got involved.

Of course.

The Iroquois Nation was an early version of the US and was a "nation" of 6 tribes that agreed on things such as land, boundaries, working together, etc, and were quite civilized. BUT-if you broke these agreements, you could be in trouble. The Constitution is attributed to the Iroquois Confederacy and not Europe.

But, history now has the Indians as savages, when even scalping was originally done rarely & only in certain tribes for ceremonial things. The Brits were the scalpers & were well known for it in Europe. When they started paying $20 a scalp for Indians- men, women, and children, the Indian nations took revenge.

[fisharmor]

Nothing creates diversity like freedom.

A better way to put this for these dummies is, "Freedom makes America diverse."

Freedom makes the market king. The market punishes losers and rewards winners. The market also doesn't care whether the winners are white or black.
Freedom doesn't create diversity directly: it simply allows winners to win, irrespective of their color.

Frederick Douglass wrote this 155 years ago:

"This question has been answered, and can be answered in many ways. Primarily, it is a question less for man than for God — less for human intellect than for the laws of nature to solve. It assumes that nature has erred; that the law of liberty is a mistake; that freedom, though a natural want of human soul, can only be enjoyed at the expense of human welfare, and that men are better off in slavery than they would or could be in freedom; that slavery is the natural order of human relations, and that liberty is an experiment. What shall be done with them?Our answer is, do nothing with them; mind your business, and let them mind theirs. Your doing with them is their greatest misfortune. They have been undone by your doings, and all they now ask, and really have need of at your hands, is just to let them alone. They suffer by ever interference, and succeed best by being let alone. The Negro should have been let alone in Africa — let alone when pirates and robbers offered him for sale in our Christian slave markets — (more cruel and inhuman than the Mohammedan slave markets) — let alone by courts, judges, politicians, legislators and slave-drivers — let alone altogether, and assured that they were thus to be left alone forever, and that they must now make their own way in the world, just the same as any and every other variety of the human family. As colored men, we only ask to be allowed to do with ourselves, subject only to the same great laws for the welfare of human society which apply to other men, Jews, Gentiles, Barbarian, Sythian. Let us stand upon our own legs, work with our own hands, and eat bread in the sweat of our own brows. When you, our white fellow-countrymen, have attempted to do anyting for us, it has generally been to deprive us of some right, power or privilege which you yourself would die before you would submit to have taken from you. When the planters of the West Indies used to attempt to puzzle the pure-minded Wilberforce with the question, How shall we get rid of slavery? his simple answer was, “quit stealing.” In like manner, we answer those who are perpetually puzzling their brains with questions as to what shall be done with the Negro, “let him alone and mind your own business.” If you see him plowing in the open field, leveling the forest, at work with the spade, a rake a hoe, a pick-axe, or a bill — let him alone; he has a right to work. If you see him on his way to school, with spelling book, geography and arithmetic in his hands — let him alone. Don’t shut the door in his face, nor bolt your gates against him; he has a right to learn — let him alone. Don’t pass laws to degrade him. If he has a ballot in his hand, and is on his way to the ballot-box to deposit his vote for the man whom he think will most justly and wisely administer the Government which has the power of life and death over him, as well as others — let him alone; his right of choice as much deserves respect and protection as your own. If you see him on his way to the church, exercising religious liberty in accordance with this or that religious persuasion — let him alone. –Don’t meddle with him, nor trouble yourselves with any questions as to what shall be done with him.
The great majority of human duties are of this negative character. If men were born in need of crutches, instead of having legs, the fact would be otherwise. We should then be in need of help, and would require outside aide; but according to the wiser and better arrangement of nature, our duty is done better by not hindering than by helping our fellow-men; or, in other wor
ds, the best way to help them is just to let them help themselves."



155 years have gone by and I'm not convinced his request was ever honored.
At least that is my fervent hope. If it ever was, then the inescapable and horrible conclusion is... maybe they can't actually stand on their own legs.

[Raginfridus]

Of course.

The Iroquois Nation was an early version of the US and was a "nation" of 6 tribes that agreed on things such as land, boundaries, working together, etc, and were quite civilized. BUT-if you broke these agreements, you could be in trouble. The Constitution is attributed to the Iroquois Confederacy and not Europe.

But, history now has the Indians as savages, when even scalping was originally done rarely & only in certain tribes for ceremonial things. The Brits were the scalpers & were well known for it in Europe. When they started paying $20 a scalp for Indians- men, women, and children, the Indian nations took revenge.
I do remember finding a quote, allegedly Ben Franklin's and something to the affect, if the "savage" could make confederacy work, so could dapper Englishmen...

[Ender]

I do remember finding a quote, allegedly Ben Franklin's and something to the affect, if the "savage" could make confederacy work, so could dapper Englishmen...

Yes, Franklin did say that.

The Indians were "savages" but the US was blessed with Manifest Destiny, so they could take out whomever they wanted. ;)

[Raginfridus]

Yes, Franklin did say that.

The Indians were "savages" but the US was blessed with Manifest Destiny, so they could take out whomever they wanted. ;)Although in Franklin's case, he might have been pandering to his audience's prejudice to sell a point. He supposedly dressed like a frontiersman for the French, and wooed rich ladies with letters.

[nobody's_hero]

I don't know. I think a rather ideologically homogenous society collectively believing consistently in property rights and free market principles would thrive. I don't know how you'd keep the non-believers out though, to keep the well from being poisoned.

[r3volution 3.0]

Leftist: Diversity makes America great!

Rightist: Diversity is making America lose its greatness!

Libertarian: American "greatness" shouldn't be the goal, liberty should be the goal.

[Swordsmyth]

Leftist: Diversity makes America great!

Rightist: Diversity is making America lose its greatness!

Libertarian: American "greatness" shouldn't be the goal, liberty should be the goal.

Liberty produces greatness, diversity for the sake of it is bad for liberty.

[r3volution 3.0]

Liberty produces greatness, diversity for the sake of it is bad for liberty.

Both forced integration and forced segregation (what the left and right want, resp.), are bad for liberty.

The liberal position is freedom of association.

And the goal of that isn't "national greatness."

[Swordsmyth]

And the goal of that isn't "national greatness."

It is Human Happiness, which most people would consider "Great", since we control our nation and not the whole world maximizing human happiness creates "National Greatness".

[r3volution 3.0]

It is Human Happiness, which most people would consider "Great", since we control our nation and not the whole world maximizing human happiness creates "National Greatness".

Human happiness and national happiness can be contradictory goals.

[Swordsmyth]

Human happiness and national happiness can be contradictory goals.

Not in the long run, Imperialism destroys the happiness of the perpetrating nation.

[r3volution 3.0]

Not in the long run, Imperialism destroys the happiness of the perpetrating nation.

Actually, that would be a short term effect. In the long run, the benefits can (and often do) outweigh the costs.

Any nation you might identify (say, the US or Russia) came about through conquest in the first place, no?

[Swordsmyth]

Actually, that would be a short term effect. In the long run, the benefits can (and often do) outweigh the costs.

Any nation you might identify (say, the US or Russia) came about through conquest in the first place, no?

Short term, as in the human life span vs. history. The human happiness of those who lived through those times was reduced.

[r3volution 3.0]

Short term, as in the human life span vs. history. The human happiness of those who lived through those times was reduced.

Yes, I'm interested in the longer term. That said, the benefits may easily outweigh the costs within a single lifetime.

Do you think that the creation of the US, Germany, Russia, or Japan (for instance) was unjustified?

That would seem an odd position for someone who values nationhood.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, I'm interested in the longer term. That said, the benefits may easily outweigh the costs within a single lifetime.

Do you think that the creation of the US, Germany, Russia, or Japan (for instance) was unjustified?

That would seem an odd position for someone who values nationhood.

There are other ways to found a nation, I am not concerned so much with how my nation came to be because I can't change it and those who founded it didn't know any better, the whole of human history was entirely composed of conquest.
It is possible for conquest to be justified, ancient Israel being the best example, so I prefer not to set myself up as a judge of times I didn't live in or philosophical questions I have not solved, like civilization vs. barbarism.
But I can judge Imperialism in my own time and it does NOT add to human happiness.

[r3volution 3.0]

There are other ways to found a nation, I am not concerned so much with how my nation came to be because I can't change it and those who founded it didn't know any better, the whole of human history was entirely composed of conquest.
It is possible for conquest to be justified, ancient Israel being the best example, so I prefer not to set myself up as a judge of times I didn't live in or philosophical questions I have not solved, like civilization vs. barbarism.
But I can judge Imperialism in my own time and it does NOT add to human happiness.

QED

[Swordsmyth]

QED
What is proved?
Has GOD spoken to you lately?
Do you have some other argument for some conquest you wish to carry out? If you do I don't necessarily agree with it, I have only said that some conquest, sometime, somewhere COULD be justified.

[r3volution 3.0]

What is proved?

That, in some circumstances, conquest is justified.


I have only said that some conquest, sometime, somewhere COULD be justified.

Yes I know. That is the Q in the QED.

[Swordsmyth]

That, in some circumstances, conquest is justified.



Yes I know. That is the Q in the QED.

Did I ever say that there was no possibility of ANY conquest being justified?
I remember arguing that as a general rule foreign intervention violated the rights of the foreigners but I never said there were absolutely no exceptions (most rules have exceptions), the case of ancient Israel that I cited was justified because GOD owns the world and is the judge, jury and executioner of justice, he could give the land to the Israelites and command the extermination of it's inhabitants, he is perfectly within his rights to give the order to "Kill them all and let me sort them out".
If there was a tribe of cannibals that lived next door and they regularly raided into our territory to kill and kidnap that would probably also justify a conquest or possibly even an extermination, as I said I have not yet conquered the civilization vs. barbarism question.
However in almost all cases in history the situation is not so clear cut so it is always best to lean towards non-interventionism.

[r3volution 3.0]

Did I ever say that there was no possibility of ANY conquest being justified?
I remember arguing that as a general rule foreign intervention violated the rights of the foreigners but I never said there were absolutely no exceptions (most rules have exceptions), the case of ancient Israel that I cited was justified because GOD owns the world and is the judge, jury and executioner of justice, he could give the land to the Israelites and command the extermination of it's inhabitants, he is perfectly within his rights to give the order to "Kill them all and let me sort them out".
If there was a tribe of cannibals that lived next door and they regularly raided into our territory to kill and kidnap that would probably also justify a conquest or possibly even an extermination, as I said I have not yet conquered the civilization vs. barbarism question.
However in almost all cases in history the situation is not so clear cut so it is always best to lean towards non-interventionism.

You didn't say so explicitly, but that appeared to me to be your position.

If not, well fine, we've been in agreement all along.

[Swordsmyth]

You didn't say so explicitly, but that appeared to me to be your position.

If not, well fine, we've been in agreement all along.
Not total agreement but apparently closer than you thought.

[r3volution 3.0]

Not total agreement but apparently closer than you thought.

Yes, I mean agreement on this one issue.

Presumably we still disagree on the specific conditions under which conquest would be justified.

[KrokHead]

Just say "no" to immigrants. Unless they were my ancestors. The country was great until those (French, German, Irish, Jewish, Italian, English, Japanese--- insert group here--) started coming.

Lack of diversity leads to inbreeding.

I agree.

Diversity is great. Hating a bunch of people totally turns them in libs, wake up people.