Frank wrote on Jul 27^th, 2024 at 8:13pm:



What is the alternative?

What are you actually advocating for?

We live in a multicultural society. There is no unringing that bell.

What do you want? Gated communities where people come in to service you?

Mass incarceration and deportation?

What do you actually want?

mothra wrote on Jul 28^th, 2024 at 5:01am:


Frank?

Cat got your tongue?

Another fatal flaw with ideals like DEI is boundaries.

Where does it start and stop and who determines those boundaries?

Should workplaces be required to check that it is not exclusively hiring psycho-normative personnel?

Should they be required to hire persons with full-blown diagnosed antisocial/ psychopathic/ schizotypal/ borderline personality disorder persons commensurate with their occurrence in the general population?

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 6^th, 2024 at 12:05pm:

An excellent example of the simplistic thinking that the blanket application of idealism evokes.

For those of us who've had kids or even lived among humans, know that academic ability often does not result in practical ability or the ability to apply what has been taught and learned.

What you're passing for ability is perceived potential based on presumptions... i.e. not ability.

There are plenty of deadbeats who received high-quality education, then bummed out due to many possible causes.

The 'low hanging fruit' of: if you're starving in a ditch, like an Irishman during the potato famine, then your needs are obvious - you have 'need'.

If 'need' only referred to food, clothing and shelter, the ideal would be easily met.

DEI is measured quantitatively in only a precious few categories: the number of women employed - by far the most common category. (in Australia) how many overtly apparent Muslims are employed - the 2nd largest category, the third being 'gender-diverse'.

Currently, DEI is crudely applied and accounted for if you've got breasts and/or wear a headcloth and/or are overtly 'gender-diverse'.

mothra wrote on Jul 28^th, 2024 at 5:01am:



While you're online, Frank ....

Frank wrote on Aug 6^th, 2024 at 2:39pm:



So, everyone should be just like you?

We tried that. People like you still pointed out the differences.

So now we embrace difference. And it has enriched up monumentally.

The fact that you're miserable is gravy.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 6^th, 2024 at 2:49pm:



If that made any sense to me, i might know how to respond.

mothra wrote on Aug 6^th, 2024 at 2:42pm:



Don't try to appear even stupider than you are, it is a wasted effort.


Properly understood, assimilation benefits both natives and newcomers. By taking in or being absorbed into the cultural tradition of the native population, newcomers are better able to communicate and integrate into society and workplaces, as well as make better use of public services. For example, learning the language of a host community enables immigrants to form personal and professional relationships that will help them and their families live happier and more prosperous lives. Natives benefit from these new friendships and associations, too. They may be more open and helpful to immigrants who show an interest in assimilation, and everyone in the country may be better off with the increased economic activity and positive social and civic relationships.

In part, immigration is a hotly contested political issue because Americans now disagree over whether immigrants should assimilate—and what that process even means.

Some progressives consider any expectation that newcomers assimilate as anti-immigrant and provincial. By contrast, some conservatives view too much difference as a source of disunity. They view assimilation as a prerequisite to new immigration and a goal of public policy.

https://manhattan.institute/article/accelerating-americanization-a-study-of-immi...

.