patrick.net

Diversity has benefits, like crop rotation or a garden. The author notes that engineering benefits from bringing together people from different backgrounds, and culture can also. The issue though comes down to what those contexts have in common: planning and a shared goal.

Instead, politics devolves too often into trench warfare between two rival patronage networks, each hurling insults at the other, and words like "conservative" or "liberal" or "diversity" can lose meaning and become almost incoherent. Most people would rather agree than think, so they join a team.

If you live in a NATO country and import millions of Muslims who believe they have a sacred obligation to kill you, especially while you are bombing their country and financing the militias that drove them out of their homes, and they know that and blame you for it, then you are likely to end up with less trust. When some of those people begin to take revenge by bombing the cities that have welcomed them, trust gets replaced by mass surveillance, which results in even less trust.

(If AI ever achieves Total Information Awareness, including mind reading, it will probably suspect everybody all the time. The thoughts of countless motorists stuck in traffic jams might easily be mistaken for those of a terrorist or serial killer. Yet, when the traffic clears, most motorists return to normal.)

The success of diversity depends on shared goals. If the ultimate goals are antithetical, e.g. Islam vs Enlightenment, problems result and trust declines. If you don't acknowledge that and plan for it, then trust declines sooner.

Is this Patrick or Thunderlips ?

resistance says

Diversity harms societies, lowers mutual trust

What about after it's not really diverse anymore ?

Eventually everyone is one of us.

Or you become one of them. Thanks for remaking the point.

Those that don't make the team end up in the Lime pit.

I don't need no stinkin' diversity.
Anyone that is different from me should commit suicide.

How far do you have to put your head up your ass to come up with this?

IOW there should be no comparative advantage. This reminds me of 1984 or one of those dystopian books

curious2 says

Diversity has benefits, like crop rotation or a garden. The author notes that engineering benefits from bringing together people from different backgrounds, and culture can also. The issue though comes down to what those contexts have in common: planning and a shared goal.

i agree that diversity has potential benefits, but also real, large, and inevitable costs like the lowering of trust described in the original post.

it is frustrating that it is absolutely forbidden to even mention the costs of diversity when speaking in the PC world.

curious2 says

The success of diversity depends on shared goals. If the ultimate goals are antithetical, e.g. Islam vs Enlightenment, problems result and trust declines. If you don't acknowledge that and plan for it, then trust declines sooner.

also very true. shared values and goals (a religion, in other words) are the cure for the harm diversity causes. the closest thing we have to a shared religion is the US constitution, but it is rather weak in its emotional hold on people compared to organically grown religions, which literally promise heaven rather than merely peace and prosperity on earth.

Diversity as its name implies is a close relative of "divisive" or divisiveness, division is you please, will always guarantee disharmony when our differences are amplified in preferance to our commonalities. As David Horowitz explains in his current book The Black Book of the American Left: Culture Wars Vol. V, PC is what used to be referred to as the "party line" in Communist countries "where deviations from the general party line have led to severe punishment." So far it hasn't led to outright death in this country but when the college president suggested the reason more women weren't in the sciences was because they were not by nature attracted to such disciplines in great numbers he had to be eliminated by firing.

rando says

i agree that diversity has potential benefits, but also real, large, and inevitable costs like the lowering of trust described in the original post

Easily debunked. You should stick to warning specifically about Muslims.

What you say is true, as long as we ignore the long losing record of monocultural closed-loop societies in warfare and economics. The U.S. has consistently admitted people with weird national customs, exotic racial backgrounds and stupid religious beliefs. To hear you tell it, we should be a fucked-up hellhole of an economic and military basket case since the 1830s, or even the 1660s (the earliest settlers were ripe religious fanatics, rejected by the old world). We should also have lost WWII, because we faced two uniform, monocultural - in the case of Japan, ridiculously so - societies. Must have been dumb luck that we won.

I thought you were trying to limit your expression of fear and concern to Muslims? I agree that they may be a special case, but you seem to have decided to widen it to a general distrust of diversity.

Funny how the U.S., with a chief military officer named Eisenhauer (Pennsylvania Dutch, ancestors immigrated in the 1740s), won a war against a German regime with a strict cultural and ideological standards of purity. What the Nazis did to their universities had real consequences for their nuclear program: "Jewish physics" was shunned for a time (and the top physicists who fled were nearly all Jewish), and by the time they realized that splitting atoms might have a military application, it was too late to catch up.

Meanwhile, in the other hemisphere, the U.S., chockablock with Catholics, Jews, blacks, Irish (regarded as "black" by 19th-century fearmongers), Asians, Italians (consult any of the multiple warnings of 19th century racists as to the untrustworthiness of dirty wops), Germans (regarded as "black" by Ben Franklin - look it up), and Japanese, simultaneously beats the monocultural, decidedly non-diverse Japanese. How can such things happen?

Some of the strongest units in WWII were Japanese fighting for the U.S. in Europe:

The 442nd Regiment was the most decorated unit for its size and length of service in the history of American warfare. The 4,000 men who initially made up the unit in April 1943 had to be replaced nearly 2.5 times. In total, about 14,000 men served, earning 9,486 Purple Hearts. The unit was awarded eight Presidential Unit Citations (five earned in one month). Twenty-one of its members were awarded Medals of Honor. Its motto was "Go for Broke".

21 Medals of Honor. These guys got their asses kicked worse than the "Teufelshunde" Marines at Belleau Wood (the doughboys who charged into machine-gun infested woods and now have local streets named after them). Many of these American citizens of Japanese ancestry had relatives in the concentration camps in the western U.S., or enlisted to get out of those concentration camps.

Here's your ideological buddy General DeWitt, who organized the concentration camps for American citizens during the war, reporting to Roosevelt in 1942:

In the war in which we are now engaged racial affinities are not severed by migration. The Japanese race is an enemy race and while many second and third generation Japanese born on United State soil, possessed of United States citizenship, have become "Americanized," the racial strains are undiluted. To conclude otherwise is to expect that children born of white parents on Japanese soil sever all racial affinity and become loyal Japanese subjects, ready to fight and, if necessary, to die for Japan in a war against the nation of their parents. That Japan is allied with Germany and Italy in this struggle is not ground for assuming that any Japanese, barred from assimilation by convention as he is, though born and raised in the United States, will not turn against this nation when the final test of loyalty comes. It, therefore, follows that along the vital Pacific Coast over 112,000 potential enemies, of Japanese extraction, are at large today. There are indications that these were organized and ready for concerted action at a favorable opportunity. The very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken.

I think of General DeWitt when I read your inane "thoughts" on race and religion. Stillwell referred to him as a "blockhead"; J. Edgar Hoover thought Dewitt was "hysterical"; you can safely think of DeWitt as your ideological soul mate.

So many Italian- and German-Americans fought in WWII that it was not thought worthy of mention. Indeed, the U.S. military was one of the earliest large organizations in world history to integrate, and boasts a tremendous diversity in its ranks, which include 15,000 Muslims.

A lot of people who think as you do were concerned that Kennedy would not be loyal to the United States as a president: there were widely-expressed concerns that he would put his loyalty to the Pope first (ironically, this fear has been closer to being realized in the votes of Antonin Scalia and other Supreme Court Catholics, who have nonetheless been pretty loyal Americans in general).

Seriously: every immigrant/minority/religious class introduced into society is suspected to be disloyal, and yet our military graveyards are full of Catholics, blacks, Jews, Muslims. How many times does this sort of thinking have to be debunked?

For 300 years, the United States has been taking people who were shunned for religious fanaticism by the rest of the world. We have kicked ass and taken names, economically and militarily. Or was this all a lie, elaborately cooked up by diabolical P.C. false-rape accusers playing a long game to weaken the American white male, so underrepresented in high-paying professions and positions of authority?

Here's how stupid this shit looks 200 years later. Ben Franklin - not one of his better days:

[W]hy should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.

Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

Basically, he's warning us against admitting Germans, French, Russians and Swedes, because they're darkies. Hysteria is timeless, and timelessly risible in retrospect.

This discussion wouldn't be complete without mentioning Alan Turing. The British were just smart enough to not care about Turing's private life while he was at Bletchley Park busting German cyphers. Without Turing (a hero to many self-described "socially liberal" code monkeys in the Bay Area who worry about diversity) WWII would have gone on far longer and far worse for us: I have seen estimates of 2 years and 2 million more lives lost. The Germans, by contrast, gassed homosexuals. (The British got around to prosecuting him after the war, because "things were better back then," in the words of some of the closet cases on this site.)

About one of the gravestones in Arlington Cemetery with a crescent on it:

Khan died in a suicide car bombing at the main gates of his base. Khan, an ordnance officer with the Germany-based 201st Forward Support Battalion, 1st Infantry Division, had watched as several of his soldiers prepared to do a routine vehicle inspection. His unit was charged with the day-to-day security and maintenance of the camp.

When an orange-colored taxi drove toward them, Khan ordered his soldiers to "hit the dirt," said his father, who received details of his son's death from his commanding officer.

Khan walked toward the car, motioning for it to stop, his father said. A makeshift bomb inside it exploded, killing him and two Iraqi civilians in addition to the two suicide bombers. Ten soldiers and six Iraqi citizens were also wounded, the Army said.

I suppose Khan, a moderate Muslim, didn't do enough to speak out against extremists, or something. There must be some reason that having him in the military was a bad idea.

Monocultural, ideologically-closed societies have a terrible losing record against diverse, enlightened ones throughout history, in both the military and economic realms. Sometimes the more diverse countries lose, but the overall record isn't even close.

We let in Mexicans, Japanese and Russians. Mexico, Japan and Russia don't let in nearly as many of us. Guess who's winning?

rando says

it is frustrating that it is absolutely forbidden to even mention the costs of diversity when speaking in the PC world.

I agree with this. Because people are afraid to speak up, it takes more time and energy to figure out whom among my acquaintances and colleagues are scarily authoritarian or just poorly informed. They have the right to express their ignorance, and I wish they felt more free to do so, because it gives me a couple of laughs.

Please continue to air your thoughts on this subject, such as they are. We need the laughs.

The chances that any of this will change your mind: 0%. That's too bad, because you are actually bad for America. If we had listened to people like you, we wouldn't be where we are economically or militarily today. And that's what "bad for America" means.

Diversity is good if people want to become part of American culture. If they come here just to take advantage of our society and not become a part of it, that destroys the community. Why would someone care for their neighbor if they have nothing in common and have completely different goals. One wants to improve the community, other just wants to make his money and doesn't care for anything.

That's part of the problem.

Why to they hate tribal bloodshed?

Tenpoundbass says

Or you become one of them. Thanks for remaking the point.

Those that don't make the team end up in the Lime pit.

I can vouch: it happened to me.

After a few years of having Spanish-speaking neighbors on both sides of me, I no longer speak English.

Oops: I got that wrong. The parents barely spoke a lick of English, but their kids fight with each other in perfect English. Guess I got it wrong - sorry.