I do not think being the same is that important and I’m afraid we will just transform into the same talking points “but reactionary” if you know what I mean. I think my points stand.

Yes, when they have a goal they have all agreed to work towards.

But the problem in all too many companies and institutions is that they’ve forgotten the goals the company or institution was created to pursue. For far too many of them “diversity” has itself become the paramount goal. We’ve become quite effective at producing that diversity almost everywhere, but it’s come at the expense of our ability to achieve those forgotten original goals.

However…respectfully: Let us keep something in mind. We are living through the reign of social engineers who by definition are attempting to mold society according to a scheme. This is believed by all here and many others – but not those in power – to be fatally flawed from conception forward.

Our particular social engineers in charge now are to my view degenerate, insane and in their own cowardly way Evil.

We have grown up in this if we we’re born from the 1960s to now. So all this dysfunction we deplore is nevertheless normal to us . We should bear this in mind.

We should bear in mind that none of this is normal, sane, healthy or even possible because we should not draw too many lasting lessons from our admittedly bitter indeed searing experiences that we would purport are eternal or indeed offer any lasting lesson beyond Do Not Do as Was Done In These Times.

For a recent reference: The Cold War. During the Cold War the terms Soviet and Russian, and Communist were interchangable. Few bothered pointing out these were not normal Russian behaviors, never mind East Germans, Czechs, Poles. Kennan was one of the few voices to point out very modestly that we weren’t looking at normal Russian behavior, and that the Soviets were twisting and warping them. We can also look to their example for Hope.

My point being that upon the end of this horrid farce we should not be committed to bending all our efforts in reaction to this warped time that seems normal to us.

With no endorsement of Diversity either as it would be in normal contexts, never mind as a fanatical bastardized religious dogma …indeed often different groups and types of people DO need to and successfully work together.

We rightly view diversity as it’s applied to us: DIVISION and Rancor for Power, Profit and Lust for Mischief.

The word will be and should be reviled for eternity in it’s present sense.

This doesn’t mean that we all need to break into monolithic and homogenous groups upon the end of the current mad reign. In particular if it means yet more suffering.

Just a note of caution. Ta.

If it is a means, then what ends is it a means to?

If it is an end, then what is its inherent value, independent of any other end to which it may be a means?

Hard mode: Food and music cannot be included (natives can learn to cook ethnic dishes, music from anywhere is now available thanks to the internet).

Talk about d-baggery.

You don’t have to read it, you know. There’s always LessWrong, and the academic community, which you might prefer.

This is an awful lot of citation-flinging without an argument behind it. 1-7 are all important, but none of those require a jumble of ethnicities, religions, and genders. I also have no problem with people who form organizations based on ‘g’ and those other factors of excellence which you mention — the main issue is in portraying diversity as an essential requirement which requires anti-discrimination laws.

Also, you will have trouble maintaining all of those factors in any organization without a shared moral framework between all the members.

Everything you’re citing is tangential to the point made in this column.