3 ms·

To describe it as "anti-diversity" kind of proves the manifesto's point - that one political side controls the debate. Because the manifesto clearly states it i

To describe it as "anti-diversity" kind of proves the manifesto's point - that one political side controls the debate. Because the manifesto clearly states it is for diversity, including diversity of gender and race (and even suggests ways to try to improve things there). It's fine to disagree with it - it has many flaws and inaccuracies, to be sure - but we can do that with honesty and fairness. Not just for the author's sake, but for our own.

vcjohnson 9y ago
>it has many flaws and inaccuracies Can you expound on these a bit? Seemed like most of the adverse responses were appeals to emotion rather than dealing with the statements and I'd like to hear a rational critique of the issues.
Latty 9y ago
It is entirely possible to claim to be for something while actively doing things that are negative for it. The author didn't get to decide if his manifesto is anti-diversity any more than the KKK get to decide if they are racist. I haven't read the manifesto, so I'm not saying it is anti-diversity, but your post appears to assume they can't be lying or wrong about that.
- jacobr 9y ago
  His entire program might result in more discrimination and less diversity, but it's hardly a manifesto against diversity as such. A significant portion is concrete proposals to increase diversity.
- Goladus 9y ago
  I haven't read the manifesto I have. The response labeling it "anti-diversity" is a pathetic and dishonest attempt to dismiss the entire thing. The "manifesto" is an honest attempt to start dialog, the shrill propaganda from the likes of Gizmodo and Recode are dishonest attempts to drown out that dialog with name-calling and rhetoric. They can of course claim technical correctness by equivocating about what they mean by "diversity" but it's not like anyone reading that filth really cares about what words really mean. You could say it was "anti race and gender diversity for diversity's sake." You could say it was "anti race and gender diversity as religion." It's opposed to taking inequality of outcome as ipso facto evidence of discrimination.

vcjohnson 9y ago

>it has many flaws and inaccuracies Can you expound on these a bit? Seemed like most of the adverse responses were appeals to emotion rather than dealing with the statements and I'd like to hear a rational critique of the issues.

Latty 9y ago

It is entirely possible to claim to be for something while actively doing things that are negative for it. The author didn't get to decide if his manifesto is anti-diversity any more than the KKK get to decide if they are racist. I haven't read the manifesto, so I'm not saying it is anti-diversity, but your post appears to assume they can't be lying or wrong about that.

jacobr 9y ago
His entire program might result in more discrimination and less diversity, but it's hardly a manifesto against diversity as such. A significant portion is concrete proposals to increase diversity.
Goladus 9y ago
I haven't read the manifesto I have. The response labeling it "anti-diversity" is a pathetic and dishonest attempt to dismiss the entire thing. The "manifesto" is an honest attempt to start dialog, the shrill propaganda from the likes of Gizmodo and Recode are dishonest attempts to drown out that dialog with name-calling and rhetoric. They can of course claim technical correctness by equivocating about what they mean by "diversity" but it's not like anyone reading that filth really cares about what words really mean. You could say it was "anti race and gender diversity for diversity's sake." You could say it was "anti race and gender diversity as religion." It's opposed to taking inequality of outcome as ipso facto evidence of discrimination.