Jump to content

Welcome, Guest!
As per the Internet Bill of Rights, you have access to most of the forums here, but MPC is a BLM-designated white privilege zone and you must become white to have a voice. Once you respond to the registration email, someone--no one knows who--must approve your new account. You will then become "white" and your privilege will be instantly assaulted.

- - - - -

Diversity vs. Community


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Bixxy Noodles

Bixxy Noodles

    Hatebot 3000

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1878 posts
  • LocationCascadia
  • How did you find MPC:Grapeseed Oil and Determination.
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, raped by Bill Cosby
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 02 January 2014 - 07:22 PM

By now we're probably all familiar with Robert D. Putnam's work (Bowling Alone, E Pluribus Unum) showing that ethnic diversity reduces social solidarity and diminishes social capital. This area of research runs directly counter to some of the most deeply-held prejudices of liberal modernity, so it's unusual to see results like these get any positive attention. Even Putnam felt it necessary to sandwich his rigorous results showing a powerful negative effect of ethnic diversity on social cohesion between a pabulum of hand-wringing about long-term benefits of immigration and assimilation, though he has no similarly rigorous results to sustain these claims. Putnam was originally so nervous about publishing his results that he sat on them for years, presumably so that he could develop the s**t sandwich strategy sufficiently that he wouldn't lose tenure over publishing such wrongthink.

And that's where it stood until recently. One major study that unambiguously shows ethnic diversity is bad for society.

And then in late 2013, a pair of social psychology researchers at Michigan State University (Zachary & Jennifer Neal) published The (In)compatibility of Diversity and Sense of Community. Here's the abstract:

Quote

Community psychologists are interested in creating contexts that promote both respect for diversity and sense of community. However, recent theoretical and empirical work has uncovered a community-diversity dialectic wherein the contextual conditions that foster respect for diversity run in opposition to those that foster sense of community. More specifically, within neighborhoods, residential integration provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect for diversity but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community. Using agent-based modeling to simulate neighborhoods and neighborhood social network formation, we explore whether the community-diversity dialectic emerges from two principle of relationship formation: homophily and proximity. The model suggest that when people for relationships with similar and nearby others, the contexts that offer opportunities to develop a respect for diversity are different from the contexts that foster a sense of community. Based on these results, we conclude with a discussion of whether it is possible to create neighborhoods that simultaneously foster respect for diversity and sense of community. (spoiler: it isn't)

Despite the repetition and academic word-salad, this artful piece of 888 disguises the seriously non-PC nature of what these researchers found when they modeled social relationship formation using like-preference and proximity weighting.

They spend the first couple of pages of the study reassuring everyone that they are doubleplus goodthinkers, emphasizing that the promotion of respect for diversity is a high priority for community psychologists (WTF?). They ever-so-gently work their way around to the uncomfortable fact that diversity and community cohesion seem to be almost tautologically exclusive every time they're investigated together. They note that a few other researchers have been noticing this too, and studying it. That's where the paper gets interesting.

They begin by referring to an apparent "Community-Diversity Dialectic." This is academic-speak for "diversity and community seem to be in opposition to each other all the time." They reference a paper by Townley, Kloos, Green, et al. titled Reconcilable Differences? Human diversity, cultural relativity, and sense of community (which I haven't read, but now plan to), in which there is posited an inverse relationship between community and diversity, backed up by several empirical studies. Neal & Neal also note:

Quote

Separately, Portes and Vickstrom (2011) offer a similar review, finding that demographic homogeneity has often been linked with higher levels of trust, social cohesion, and belongingness typically thought to compose sense of community.

Of course, we can file this under "No s**t, Sherlock" as it comes as no surprise to anyone whose brain hasn't been pulped by progressivist nonsense in graduate school, but I think it's very interesting that we are now starting to see a body of recent scholarly work directly addressing this. Neal & Neal also go on to cite a study of college freshman (Shook & Fazio, 2008) which found that white students randomly assigned a black roommate (doh! A wild nagger appears!) expressed less racial prejudice (LOL...as if they would admit it to a figure of authority), but also less relationship satisfaction. Perhaps Steadman can do his own individual practicum study on this and get back to us with the results - preferably in the form of pics of his black roomie's chimp-outs.

They reference a bunch of other studies too, covering a wide range of demographics and contexts, coming to the conclusion that diversity and community "may not be compatible." (WOW JUST WOW)

They also follow this up with a quick bit of LOL that has to be quoted in full so you can appreciate how retarded progressives have become:

Quote

The community-diversity dialectic presents a paradox for community psychologists because it highlights the conflictual nature of two core values in the field. Townley et al. (2011) argue for an expansion of the definition of sense of community to realign it with the goals of promoting diversity. More specifically, they suggest that sense of community should be redefined to focus on bridging social capital (i.e. ties across diverse groups of communities that facilitate the flow of resourses) rather than bonding social capital (i.e. trust, belongingness, social cohesion). This is a semantic solution that calls for a fundamental change in the conceptualization of sense of community.

:librage: COMMUNITY AND DIVERSITY AREN'T IN CONFLICT AT ALL IF WE DEFINE COMMUNITY TO MEAN DIVERSITY!

None of the authors of the Townley paper are obvious members of the tribe nor known to be under clinical care, but this redefinition of terms approach to make community a purely transactional bridge absolutely reeks of talmudic logic :rabbi: and the 'tism :caplan:. Fortunately, Neal & Neal aren't buying that specious line of argument one bit.

Quote

However, in this respect, it dodges rather than addresses the paradox. In this paper, we aim to increase our understanding of the community-diversity dialectic by examining why diversity and sense of community are negatively related. By understanding the mechanism that place these two values of community psychology in conflict, we are better positioned to understand what, if anything, community psychologists can do about the community-diversity dialectic.

So what do they do? They build an agent-based model of human social behavior and relationship formation, in which they set up abstractions of simulated neighborhood containing to types of people. The "type" categorization is sufficiently generic that it is not solely representative of ethnicity, but of many other types of difference as well. As they put it, the difference of type is due to difference in "any socially consequential characteristic." The important thing is that the agents make decisions based on perceived difference, hence the 'socially consequential' parameter.

The "neighborhoods" are defined by their relative level of residential integration among the two types in each case, according to the percentage of one's neighbors out to certain radii who are dissimilar to each agent, ranging from 0.0 (homogenous) to 0.50 (fully integrated). They do not consider values greater than 0.50 (dissortatively mixed) because preliminary simulations find that the rare cases where that value might occur do not effect the results.

There is also a relationship-formation model in which homophily and proximity are the primary interaction criteria. Homophily is the documented tendency for people to form social relationships more quickly with people who are more like themselves. Proximity is the documented tendency for people to form social relationships more quickly with people who are in closer proximity to themselves. There's a bunch of technical description of how they set this model up, and then they run it, iteratively, a whole bunch of times for different cases.

So, what were the results?

Quote

Neighborhoods with the greatest opportunity for residents to develop a respect for diversity (i.e. highly integrated neighborhoods, as measured by level of mixing) have the least capacity to foster a sense of community (as measured by each resident's personal network density). Likewise, neighborhoods with the least opportunity for residents to develop a respect for diversity (i.e. highly segregated neighborhoods) have the greatest capacity to foster a sense of community. This finding suggests that, the values of community psychology notwithstanding, it is not possible to simultaneously promote respect for diversity and sense of community in a typical world where relationship formation is driven by homophily and proximity.

BOOM!

The discussion section follows with a whole lot of 888 about what this might not necessarily be the soul-crushing bad news for progressives that it appears to be, but it's generally unconvincing. They also ultimately admit right out that community isn't a primary goal, it's subservient to diversity: "...we speculate that favoring a respect for diversity over a sense of community may often be preferable." That sentence could be ImmigrationPolicy.txt.

They close by noting that, since their results show that diversity and community are mutually incompatible, and given the universality of the behavioral tendencies that drive their model and its results, the simultaneous promotion of both in the real world is likely to be impossible.

#2 Probably Not Posting Here Anymore

Probably Not Posting Here Anymore

    Serious Internet Businessman

  • Chaperoned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1929 posts
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 02 January 2014 - 07:34 PM

Well, at least now maybe they'll be more open about seeking to destroy communities in the name of diversity.

#3 E_R

E_R

    Artisanal Boomer Hate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3688 posts
  • Have you experienced sex?:Unanswered
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 02 January 2014 - 07:43 PM

Quote

"...we speculate that favoring a respect for diversity over a sense of community may often be preferable."


This sentence is pretty terrifying and perfectly encapsulates modern thinking. This could be written as a god damn Twilight Zone episode. Diversity™ is the great religious altar on which everything else is sacrificed. You don't like walking down your own street and see nothing but a sea of faces that are strange and not like yours? Tough, DIVERSITY. You prefer clean, orderly communities free from mobs of angry muds that will literally attempt to kill you in a knock-out game because "They were bored"? CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE. The modern liberals like to label them "communities"m but what they really are are just varying groupings of buildings with scared people inside of them that do not wish to know each other because at a very basic, biological level we are meant to communicate with and love people of our own kind. That is an iron law of nature that no f****t s**tlib two-hand cupping hot coco in his footie PJs can ever change. They can only delude themselves until they're being beaten to within an inch of their life by Raekwon.


Unless your community is 80+% white and in an area of the country with majority white settlements, it is probably not a real community in the meaningful sense of the word. Also, even if it is 80+% white, there is also the problem of most of the inhabitants being liberals, or brainwashed FOX News neo-cons. There are very few communities that are actually communities and majority white. It takes character, not only race, to make up a community that is worth anything.


#4 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    "Jew Lover From MPC"

  • Administrators
  • 34983 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 03 January 2014 - 02:52 AM

Great OP.  The conclusion is no surprise from sociologists who treat biology as a closed book.  It amazes me that people who accept kin affinity treat extended circles of relatedness as some baffling riddle that science may never solve.  Particularly as they themselves are usually entrenched in communities of virtually identical academic liberals!  Not to mention their inability to grasp how shared culture allows for a deeper and richer form of interaction, rather than the very superficial diversity bazaar of cultural tourism.  (Indeed you can often hear SWPL types sneering at tourists who simply visit landmarks and museums and don't "immerse themselves in the culture".  And yet they take the same approach to their own communities, looking for signifiers of diversity rather than understanding people more closely related to them.)

Even before I got to the part about redefining community I knew it would be high on the list of reactions.  Of course liberals will try to make "facilitating the flow of resourses" (i.e. "gimmedats") the real meaning of community.  You can see that one coming a mile away.  There is simply no way liberals can jettison their precious multiculturalism just because it is totally impractical.

"We speculate that favoring a respect for diversity over a sense of community may often be preferable"--no duh, the diversity project has been destroying communities for decades so that SWPLs can have cheap servants and varied restaurant cuisine.  Like deficit spending, it's just a way of beggaring your descendants so that you can live richly now.

What these fools don't realize is that cohesion makes many things possible in a large scale society--if one may stoop to economist jargon, it reduces the costs of most interactions.  That's why we are developing this wonderful surveillance culture, and getting xrayed at the airport, and chaining down laptops at the office, and embedding security sensors in our homes.  The real cost of low trust is additional layers of complexity, and it's a zero sum game--what you spend on this complexity can't be spent on other things that communities need.

Further, there are spiritual costs that are also ignored.  When people have belonging they are also mentally healthier, and thus do not require an entire therapeutic culture to treat chronic mental illness.  The materialism they turn to is a big deal because it makes them more erratic, hampers what social bonds they do form, and reduces the stability of society (materialism being highly prone to impulsivivity).

All of this is just waved aside by diversity-obsessed liberals.  But here we see the opening for a true and hopeful conservative rhetoric--I think there is nothing as convincing as someone who seems to understand your difficulty and who offers a remedy for it, one that seems intuitively correct, unlike the policy gimmicks of wonks and academics.

#5 Black Mischief

Black Mischief

    Computer Expert

  • Chaperoned
  • Pip
  • 109 posts
  • How did you find MPC:SPLC Hate Map
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 03 January 2014 - 10:34 AM

Richard Florida of the Atlantic recently wrote an editorial regarding the same study, and while there was some straightforward analysis, there was also the predictable liberal tip-toeing. Interestingly, he avoids any semantic wordplay or efforts to "re-define" community, though his eventual solution bares the same overtly abstract characteristics typical to leftist thought (more on this later).

http://www.theatlant...mmunities/7614/

But for starters, he's surprisingly not afraid to acknowledge the study in the first place (which is what I image most shitlibs would do) and even manages to broach the difficult notion that diversity and community can't be fostered at the same time (seen below):

Quote

These findings are sobering. Because homophily and proximity are so ingrained in the way humans interact, the models demonstrated that it was impossible to simultaneously foster diversity and cohesion “in all reasonably likely worlds.” In fact, the trends are so strong that no effective social policy could combat them, according to Neal. As he put it in a statement, “In essence, when it comes to neighborhood desegregation and social cohesion, you can't have your cake and eat it too...
The fact of the matter is we sort ourselves into communities of similar, like-minded others. And this sorting process appears to be built into the very structure of our social lives.”

Clearly this an unacceptable development, so Florida takes it upon himself to write to Neal to ask him if maybe they're just looking at the data in the wrong way. Maybe what they need to do instead is think of cities in more ... "vibrant" terms.

Quote

"I asked Neal whether he thought that cities that were made up of a federation or mosaic of distinct neighborhoods were more likely to succeed than ones comprised of several more fully mixed neighborhoods. He told me that his model essentially predicted that, regardless of size, more segregated areas – be they neighborhoods or cities – will be more cohesive. He added in an email, “Or even, a more segregated earth will be more cohesive, and a less segregated earth will be less cohesive. Putting diversity and segregation together - you could have a metro that is cohesive and diverse, but it would also need to be highly segregated... [Therefore] If diversity is unattainable at the neighborhood level, might it be possible at the level of the city, as essentially a network of more or less similar neighborhoods?”

Ah yes, cities with flavor; comprised of "mosaics of distinct neighborhoods."

In other words, a sort of rainbow utopia.

Thus, after engaging in the obligatory amount of mental gymnastics, for Florida the solution actually appears to be a kind of de fact segregation in cities augmented by government efforts to "bridge" communities together with one another (Anyone else thinking of compulsory diversity parades?)

Quote

For this reason, urbanists and local policy makers might be better off refocusing their efforts away from the unachievable ideal of diverse and cohesive neighborhoods and toward creating cohesion across the various neighborhoods that make up a city. In his watershed book Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam distinguished between two types of social capital: “bonding,” which occurs within like-minded groups, and “bridging,” which occurs between them. If, as the Neals’ study shows, we can’t make our neighborhoods more diverse and cohesive at the same time, perhaps the primary, over-arching, and achievable objective is to reinforce the bridging ties between them. Given the growing economic, cultural, and political divides within our cities and across the nation as a whole, working to strengthen the “bridges” between communities may be a far more realistic approach than attempting the impossible task of trying to make everywhere more diverse.

Sounds highly plausible.


#6 MS: Database Entry in a Genetics Project

MS: Database Entry in a Genetics Project

    Forums Account Manager

  • Chaperoned
  • PipPipPip
  • 710 posts
  • How did you find MPC:The URL was written in the margins on page 666 of my Jewish Book of Tricks
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 03 January 2014 - 10:40 AM

Quote

To be sure, it would be naı¨ve to view social contact alone as sufficient for promoting a respect for diversity. Indeed, there is some evidence that superficial contact in the absence of more meaningful interactions can lead to intergroup tension (Townley et al. 2011), and others have argued that exposure to diversity may lead to social withdrawal or ‘‘hunkering down’’ (Putnam 2007).
The truth is that in a mixed neighborhood "more meaningful interactions" are probably the result of nosy SWPL types going out of their way to befriend some nogs or steezers because the diversity mind virus is already firmly entrenched in their mushy liberal heads.  Those SWPL will then (in their own heads at least) may have a sense of both on a very superficial level, but when it really comes down to it their real friends are still the useless libarts fags they meet regularly for the spoken word faggotry at their local trendy coffee shop.

Quote

Despite minor differences, these theorists all point to a common mechanism whereby network density generates feelings of belongingness. When one’s friends are also friends with one another, a relational feedback loop (what social network theorists call a ‘‘cycle’’) is established. For example, if A is friends with B and C, and B and C are also friends with each other, there is a closed loop or cycle A ? B ? C ? A. In such cases, when A seeks social support from one friend (e.g. B), other friends (e.g. C) can also learn of her need and can provide assistance as well. In contrast, this sharing of social support cannot occur in sparse or open personal social networks where, when A seeks social support from one friend, her other friends would remain unaware of her need.
Now imagine what the above mechanism looks like in a diverse neighborhood.  LaQueeta (A) is behind on her HUD payments again and might normally ask her momma (B) or her baby daddy Da'Quantravious © for help.  Or she can ask Pajama boy (D) down the street with whom she had a brief interaction with as a part of PJ boy's work with Organizing for Shitliberalism where he helped her game the system for a little extra gibsmedats.  She goes to PJ boy for help with this month's subsidized rent, and he is delighted at the prospect of being able to regale his love interest, aging cat lady (E), with details of his liberal generosity.  This first round of interaction goes swimmingly for all involved and many self-congratulatory pats on the back were had by all.  Soon however, Da'Quantravious © finds himself in a bit of legal trouble, and needs some assistance.  He tells LaQueeta (A) who refers him to PJ boy (D), who let's aging cat lady (E) in on the situation since it just so happens that she is a legal aide for the HeDin'tDoNuffins Freedom Project.  Unfortunately, © has issues with impulse control and "sexually assaults" (E) and leaves her in a coma.  The once tight knit social network frays considerably in the wake of this unfortunate event.  
Or, more likely, the nice SWPL get tired of helping out the constantly needy blacks in their midst and can't talk about it since that would be crimethink.  They are now incapable of forming any future associations for mutual help locally because they all know who will be helping and who will be helped.  Even for them it gets tiresome.

#7 CharlesBronson

CharlesBronson

    Posting Associate Level II

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Have you experienced sex?:Unanswered
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 03 January 2014 - 11:09 AM

View PostMoishe Schwartzmordstein, on 03 January 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:


The truth is that in a mixed neighborhood "more meaningful interactions" are probably the result of nosy SWPL types going out of their way to befriend some nogs or steezers because the diversity mind virus is already firmly entrenched in their mushy liberal heads.  Those SWPL will then (in their own heads at least) may have a sense of both on a very superficial level, but when it really comes down to it their real friends are still the useless libarts fags they meet regularly for the spoken word faggotry at their local trendy coffee shop.


Yeah, in my experience, urban SWPLs have a remarkably low standard for what constitutes community or getting along with outsiders in a diverse setting. They basically reduce it to the lowest common denominator, something along the lines of "we aren't in open warfare, so we're OK." Meanwhile, the fact that they know enough spanish to order a taco from the local taqueria makes them feel like they're really engaging with the local latino community on a deep and meaningful level. Of course they still largely stick to their own in their personal life (SWPLs and their pet SWPLified minorities).

Obviously, a lot of this is because of the naive SWPL worldview, but a lot is out of their control; not only because white people are about the most welcoming of races, but also because they're deracinated and rootless, never having experienced true community in the first place.

#8 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    "Jew Lover From MPC"

  • Administrators
  • 34983 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 03 January 2014 - 11:17 AM

if a nagger smiles at him on the street the SWPL considers himself 1/8th negro

#9 Probably Not Posting Here Anymore

Probably Not Posting Here Anymore

    Serious Internet Businessman

  • Chaperoned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1929 posts
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 03 January 2014 - 11:45 AM

Let me go TOG for a moment. Is this actually a breakthrough of any kind, or is it exactly the sort of thing elites will appreciate? The lower and middle classes have been well and thoroughly diversified now. The logic of diversity is pretty clear: the rich white/jewish gated communities should be diversified as well. But before anyone gets around to noticing this, there's scientific reason to forestall such efforts. Sorry about that, goy, but the arguments we used to obliterate *your* communities don't work anymore. It's unfortunate, yes, but there will be tradeoffs. You know how it is.

Does anyone doubt for a second that the richest communities will ensure that tradeoffs in *their* cases go in the opposite direction from "diversity"? These studies aren't challenging shitlibs at all. They aren't even advances in our understanding (as PMAN points out, how hard is it to realize these things could be opposed). Instead, it's just toadying to an elite that refuses to suffer the consequences of its own decisions.

#10 PLEASUREMAN

PLEASUREMAN

    "Jew Lover From MPC"

  • Administrators
  • 34983 posts
  • How did you find MPC:I created it
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 03 January 2014 - 12:14 PM

Putnam sat on his research, though, and spun it unconvincingly when he was forced to release it.

#11 Amulet Cracka Essence

Amulet Cracka Essence

    Serious Internet Businessman

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2512 posts
  • LocationSteveosphere
  • How did you find MPC:Typed 'man forum' on Richard Stallman's netbook
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, in anime relationship (2-D)
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 03 January 2014 - 12:41 PM

Quote

If, as the Neals’ study shows, we can’t make our neighborhoods more diverse and cohesive at the same time, perhaps the primary, over-arching, and achievable objective is to reinforce the bridging ties between them. Given the growing economic, cultural, and political divides within our cities and across the nation as a whole, working to strengthen the “bridges” between communities may be a far more realistic approach than attempting the impossible task of trying to make everywhere more diverse.

Sneaky justification for AA college student 'community liason' employment spotted.

#12 Probably Not Posting Here Anymore

Probably Not Posting Here Anymore

    Serious Internet Businessman

  • Chaperoned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1929 posts
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 03 January 2014 - 02:07 PM

View PostPLEASUREMAN, on 03 January 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

Putnam sat on his research, though, and spun it unconvincingly when he was forced to release it.

Yes, but that's 13 years ago now. And Putnam seems like a well-meaning sort who probably wouldn't be interested in spinning his research to the advantage of elites as described above. But it's just enough time for someone to recognize: "Well, diversity probably isn't an unalloyed good. How can this fact be made good for the jews?" :tog:

#13 Olmos

Olmos

    Enigmatic Henchpoaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 872 posts
  • How did you find MPC:Full-page ad in Samizdat Quarterly
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes, grabbed pussy
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 03 January 2014 - 05:07 PM

I'm just finishing up Bowling Alone. The point about diversity trashing cohesion is obviously essential to understanding modern America, and there's some good background on how technology has cut into socialization that could use an update for the age of Facebook and smartphones. My biggest complaint is that Putnam, besides being a s**tlib, is a terrible writer in true academic style. His prose is full of throat-clearing, repetition, and dry lists of statistics and attributes. Any page with a graph (and there's a lot) will have half its text taken up describing what the graph says in painful detail: "As you can see, Elks membership exploded in the years following the war, sustained a high plateau during the late 50's to early 60's, exhibited increasing volatility throughout the 70's, and then began an accelerating decline that persists to this day. This strikes a sharp contrast to the progression of Catholic Church participation, sharing more in common with our previously discussed analysis of barbershop quartets". His actual theses are pretty good if a little obvious to the average hateforum user, but he needs to get to the point and leave the spreadsheets in the appendices. I realize he's first and foremost a researcher, but so is Haidt and that didn't stop him from writing a much more lucid popularization of his ideas.

The thing that chafes me about the official party line on diversity is that it tacitly assumes that race and sex (and maybe gay/tranny status) are the only dimensions that could give someone a genuinely different perspective, i.e. white hetero men are all 100% vanilla and urgently in need of vibrancy injections. Maybe shitlibs live in such ideological bubbles that it really is a novelty to meet someone who doesn't fulfill 80%+ of the Stuff White People Like list, but among normals who have friends and family with a variety of careers, hobbies, and backgrounds, you can actually get a lot of interesting variation without a single swarthy face in the mix. It's also weird to claim that only genetic differences like race and sex count while simultaneously arguing that all people are identical at birth and genetics be damned.

Anyway, for the record I really do hate to walk down the street or ride a subway and find myself surrounded by a horde of mystery meat barbarians speaking glubjub. No graphs or 888 sperging necessary to explain the sensation; as Flashman used to say "Good old England and damn all foreigners".

#14 Saucer Lord

Saucer Lord

    Forums Expert (less time for golf)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9171 posts
  • LocationTop secret Lunar Base
  • How did you find MPC:Consulted translation of Voynich manuscript
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 03 January 2014 - 06:32 PM

What always gets to me about these sorts of discussions is that the benefits of diversity are usually vague - a lot of buzzwords and warm fuzzy nonsense about how being introduced to new ways of thinking and doing will open peoples' minds and help them realize there's more than one solution to a problem. How grimy ethnic eateries and neighborhoods packed full of imported vibrants who are barely fluent in their native tongue much less English are supposed to help bring this utopia about are usually not addressed. So once again it's statistics vs. ill-defined somethingisms and guess which wins out in the liberal mind.

#15 That One Guy

That One Guy

    Serious Internet Businessman

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4987 posts
  • LocationUSA
  • How did you find MPC:glp forums
  • Have you experienced sex?:Yes
  • Have you ever not been in a street fight?:Unanswered

Posted 14 January 2014 - 03:43 PM

The Fruit of Diversity (:chimp: "DA BLACKA DA BERRI DA SWEETA DA JUICE!")

The Worst School in New York

Posted Image

Quote

The school nurse has no office equipped with a sink, refrigerator or cot.

Quote

About 40 kindergartners have no room in the three-story brick building. They sit all day in dilapidated trailers that reek of “animal urine,” a parent said; rats and squirrels noisily scamper in the walls and ceiling.

Quote

And the principal — Marcella Sills, Posted Image who joined PS 106 nine years ago — is a frequent no-show, sources say.

Sills did not come to school last Monday. On Tuesday, she showed up at 3:30 p.m.

On Wednesday, The Post found her at home in Westbury, LI, all day before emerging at 2:50 p.m. — school dismissal time. Wearing a fur coat, she took her BMW for a spin.


She showed up at school Thursday, but not Friday.

When Sills, 48, does go to work, it’s rarely before 11?a.m. — and often hours later, say sources familiar with her schedule.

“She strolls in whenever she wants,” one said.

Posted Image "WHO IZ U NIKKUH?"

Quote

The school hasn’t had a payroll secretary in years.

A Department of Education spokesman said Sills was required to report her absences and tardiness to District 27 Superintendent Michelle Lloyd-Bey but would not say whether Sills did so last week.

Lloyd-Bey did not return a call. Sills hung up on a reporter. Posted Image

When she is out, an assistant principal is left in charge. Yet Sills, who gets a $128,207 salary, also pockets overtime pay — $2,900 for 83 hours in 2011, the latest available records show.

“This school is a complete shithole, but nobody in a position of power comes to investigate. No one cares,” a community member said.

:librage: "IF WE JUST GIVE THEM SOME MORE OF THEIR OWN SCHOOLS AND LET THEM TEACH THEIR OWN PEOPLE, THEN THEY CAN RISE UP AND BECOME CIVILIZED! YOU ALL ARE BIGOTS FOR NOT WANTING TO SUBJECT YOUR LIVES AND YOUR CHILDREN's LIVES TO OUR SOCIAL EXPERIMENT OF DIVERSITY!"


MPC is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.