Diversity - A Philosophical Discussion...

[Danny]

In my opinion the whole of America is too ignorant and alone in this day and age to be able to band together ala the 40s and 50s. We have so many tools to be able to be educated, yet we don't use them. We instead use these tools to becomes more and more sedentary. In the 40s and 50s there were no computers or cell phones. If you wanted to talk to your friends you went down to the local diner or swing joint and started talking, there was no IMing or txting, only real people creating real friendships, and in my opinion that is lacking in this day and age.

[z31maniac]

Danny you are my real friend, yes?

[chadthestampede]

The problem I think is a sort of bastardization of postmodernism that people use to justify their perceived right to (usually) money and privileges that have, thus far in their lives, been denied. In other words, people look for a establishment or a current classification that they can somehow rebel against (by saying it somehow excludes or offends them) in order to profit from it.

This is entirely possible now that everyone from every race, background, culture, etc (real or imaginary) must be coddled. Ironically this is sort of a knee jerk reaction to the long period of domination by a certain group of people (namely WASP) that has gone completely the opposite way.

Frankly, it boils down to ignorance, and as a result of such ignorance, the idea that one can 'get away with' living off other people and should do so as long as possible.

To Danny, unfortunately I think that which would have bonded us together in the mid century has now been proven to be untrustworthy. Beginning probably with Watergate and other scandals over the years the American people learned that their government couldn't be trusted, and with Vietnam the growing 'cool factor' of dissent we lost faith in our military as a whole. Finally, organized religion has failed us in a way people never thought possible in the 40s and 50s so the trust has been lost there as well.

Thus, as a nation we have lost 3 major ideals that could have bonded us together, but instead create a frightening degree of polarization among people. Add that to the increasing detachment from one another via the internet, texting, etc as Danny said, and you have not only a nation that is polarized but a group of people that have literally no personal connection to one another. Therefore, apathy as a result of distance, both literal and figurative, arises.

I can't remember what else I wanted to say.

[Schniddy]

I'm saying because it's part of an underlying understanding that we generally all adhere to at a foundational level.

It all comes back to the all-mighty dollar.

Mo money mo problems

"Genocide is the greatest community-builder."
- Philip Gourevitch

Theres a lot of talk (conspiracy) about this happening on a social engineering level. Imagine a world where only 10% remained. oh wait, look at this, heres some backup:

Salmonella/Food Outbreaks
Anthrax
Terrorists - Foreign/Domestic
Global Warming beget Climate Change
Nations - Iran/N Korea/etc.

Vietnam, wall street crash, ect, ect..and the list goes on

In my opinion

Your opinion compares the past decade with the 40/50's. Are we missing anything?

I can't remember what else I wanted to say.

Still a great post. Except for this part, unless you're referring to a mass movement failure:

Finally, organized religion has failed us in a way people never thought possible in the 40s and 50s so the trust has been lost there as well.

Organized religion went on a corporate scale in the 60's, which can be seen throughout the nation with mega churches popping up everywhere, and eventually an Evangelical Prez.! Basically, a mass agenda loss of trust. I think this is what you were trying to say.?




All of it boils down to polarization. The article below reinforces this notion of lost diversity, and amarican turmoil:

The Aquarians and the Evangelicals

http://reason.com/archives/2007/06/2...d-the-evangeli

How left-wing H0lmes and right-wing 'joshh' created a libertarian America.

"...That split pits one set of half-truths against another. On the left gathered those who were most alive to the new possibilities created by the unprecedented mass affluence of the postwar years but at the same time were hostile to the social institutions—namely, the market and the middle-class work ethic—that created those possibilities. On the right rallied those who staunchly supported the institutions that created prosperity but who shrank from the social dynamism they were unleashing. One side denounced capitalism but gobbled its fruits; the other cursed the fruits while defending the system that bore them. Both causes were quixotic, and consequently neither fully realized its ambitions. But out of their messy dialectic, the logic of abundance would eventually fashion, if not a reworked consensus, then at least a new modus vivendi...."

[Jand3rson]

I thought Diversity was an old, old wooden ship that was used in the civil war era. What is all the rest of this crap?

[Dude]

I thought Diversity was an old, old wooden ship that was used in the civil war era. What is all the rest of this crap?

Hence my post...

[Schniddy]

I thought Diversity was an old, old wooden ship that was used in the civil war era. What is all the rest of this crap?

Hence my post...

Ya, your both right, with race still being a huge issue, but thats only one point. I think this thread is mostly about how our society and culture has become diverse in a negative way. What I posted was merely about the polarization of a less diverse and free thinking america.that is all..


I'm saying social and cultural diversity is good, not bad like the OP portrayed. It's in the fundamental foundations where diversity becomes a negative. Ted reinstated his argument to support this. ;)


Lets try to keep this a 'troll' free thread.

[ck_taft325is]

There's a pretty good article along these lines in Forbes talking about Multiculturalism and how it interacts with Society. The basic premise is that there's a school of wrong though that believes we should, each of us, all be the same. Eradicating free thought, great minds or anyone of extraordinary gifts, etc.

Interesting enough. Frankly, everyone has to stop worrying about other peoples stinky shit and take care of their own. From a Governmental stand point, you can't regulate personal morality. Only the punish those who violate the God given rights of others (life, etc). As Farbin said, some people play on the freeway at night wearing black. It's just not smart and the consequences (those exist?!, shocker...) of being an idiot is just that.

As C.S. Lewis wrote, "Some at Cambridge, Harvard and Yale believe we are all created equal.. and that life is fair but, this is simply not true. Fairness is being given the same chance at life as anyone else. Not the same oppurtunities. One must accept that we are not all created equal. If we operate and start our worldview on this base premise, we will be sorely bruised throughout life... it is simply not so. The only logical out come to making everyone equal is to destroy anyone that is better than the most... basic of man"

[joshh]

^^Great post.



At what expense though? I have no problem with religion or other cultures as long as I know they are peaceful.

[CorvallisBMW]

I guess it's more libertarian because it depends on the issue.

Fiscally and for the sake of societal order I lean more to the right. But I don't base that some religious view or thinking some race is better than another or blame one sect of society. It's more that stable families, employed people, etc. make life better for those around them as well.

Socially I'm more middle of the road. I think that the war on drugs is bogus, and that there is a need for many of the social programs we have out of responsibility to society. However, i think a lot of those programs are misused and poorly run. Done right, I think we have more than enough capacity to make things work. BUT, it's how we go about doing it that bothers me.

I also believe in the equality of man in general. Race/gender/orientation/whatever doesn't mean one is better than the other. Unfortunately, everyone wants to point the finger at someone else instead of looking in on their own lives and their own community to solve their own problems - which makes the most sense as they are actually connected to their community just like I am with mine.

It's amazing how much stuff we agree on. I remember when we got plowed a few years back and solved all the world's problems in like 4 hours of discussion. Why is it so hard for our leaders to do that?

Maybe it's because they're all too sober? :)

[z31maniac]

From a Governmental stand point, you can't regulate personal morality.

Ahem, cough.

[uofom3]

^^Great post.



At what expense though? I have no problem with religion or other cultures as long as I know they are peaceful.

Exactly... but define peaceful? There are a lot of places that I would never go but what they have is the "norm" for them and they deam it OK.

I'm not undercutting your point - I agree. What I think some people forget is that not everyone has the same "Do whatever floats your boat" attitude provide that "you're not sinking mine". There are people in this world who will kill you just because of where you are from. We don't operate like that on the whole - and there are places that do.

[uofom3]

Mo money mo problems

It's no money, mo problems.

Look at historical unemployment rates. When more people are worse off, obviously you are going to see a problem in society. The solution does not come from giving people wealth or entitlement, it comes from people working for something (whatever that is) and attaining it.

A great example is weight loss. Anyone can lose weight if they want to. They can still eat shit food - just less of it - and lose weight. There are literally millions of miles of paved sidewalk and to run on and school tracks. It doesn't require a membership anywhere - just determination and resolve. The problem is, most people don't who are very overweight don't have the determination or resolve to put down the soda and pick up a glass of water. Instead the whine and complain and want to spend fifty bucks on a wonder drug that solves all their problems.

Money is no different.