The NEW SLAVERY - comment 77333
Shades of the diversity kings. A diversity advocate of the liberal wing just can’t avoid spouting the mantra of DIVERSITY every other sentence while ignoring the obvious RACIST slur a member of congress attacked congress with. The population – XOR – the media in general can’t help themselves. Anyone examine the meaning of the word?If you focus on difference you will ignore the fundamental aspects of what is to be HUMAN. Divide & Conquer is the modus operandi of the Liberal Democratic Party. Look at Tucker try in vain to get it across:
mid-14c., "quality of being diverse," mostly in a neutral sense, from Old French diversité (12c.) "difference, diversity, unique feature, oddness:" also "wickedness, perversity," from Latin diversitatem (nominative diversitas) "contrariety, contradiction, disagreement;" also, as a secondary sense, "difference, diversity," from diversus "turned different ways" (in Late Latin "various"), past participle of divertere (see divert).
Negative meaning, "being contrary to what is agreeable or right; perversity, evil" existed in English from late 15c. but was obsolete from 17c. Diversity as a virtue in a nation is an idea from the rise of modern democracies in the 1790s, where it kept one faction from arrogating all power (but this was not quite the modern sense, as ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, etc. were not the qualities in mind):The dissimilarity in the ingredients which will compose the national government, and still more in the manner in which they will be brought into action in its various branches, must form a powerful obstacle to a concert of views in any partial scheme of elections. There is sufficient diversity in the state of property, in the genius, manners, and habits of the people of the different parts of the Union, to occasion a material diversity of disposition in their representatives towards the different ranks and conditions in society. ["The Federalist," No. 60, Feb. 26, 1788 (Hamilton)]
Specific focus (in a positive sense) on race, gender, etc. is from 1992.
It makes the whole network more resilient ...
which preservation avoids the vulnerability of sameness.
It is interesting to note that the life force itself, creates #diversity.
That is what it does. That is the direction it is going.
That individuals share characterizes is not a handicap. That would make no sense at all.
nor does that absurb proposition follow from anything that i said.
Here is more what i am saying ….
Looking at the whole there is a spectrum of individuals from sameness to difference. The whole is more resilient where a balance in the spectrum is allowed to exist. The life force itself causes us to differentiate. Yet still we cling together as one. There is no profit in forsaking the one force for the other … rather i want them both.