6 ms·

I first read that post several years ago and re-read it now, and I found that what bothered me back then is still bothering me today: The article goes to great

by p-e-w 3y ago

I first read that post several years ago and re-read it now, and I found that what bothered me back then is still bothering me today: The article goes to great lengths, with amazing visual presentation, to demonstrate how a diverse society can be achieved. It doesn't say a single word about why society should strive to be diverse. Instead, the article (ironically) appears to be written from the biased standpoint that it "ought to be" so. We hear claims like "harmful world", "shapist" (as a derogatory term for the natural human desire to be surrounded by like-minded individuals), "society cracks and splits", and a rather distasteful analogy between supposed biases and dirt. None of these assertions are ever justified by the authors. They are simply assumed to be correct, and presented to the reader as moral axioms. But of course, such claims are amenable to empirical analysis. One obvious approach is to compare rural and urban environments. Rural, isolated societies tend to be much less diverse than those found in modern "world cities". If the moral valuation implied by this article is correct, it should be possible to demonstrate that the society in a typical metropolis is, in some obvious way, "better" than that in a typical village. It certainly isn't obvious to me that this is indeed the case. I've lived in places where a dozen languages could be heard spoken on the street, and I've lived in villages that looked like they were frozen in time. I've been part of the majority, and I've been a one-in-a-thousand outsider, catching stares from random people who passed me by. I can't say I ever felt that diversity itself was the problem, or the solution for anything.

jrmg 3y ago
Affluence and opportunity are currently not evenly distributed amongst the human population (or, if you like, the American population). Certain groups, for historical reasons, have way ‘better’ lives than others. I don’t think this is at all arguable. I would like to live in a world where every child has an equal opportunity to make their own way in life. It doesn’t seem likely that this will (or can) happen without diversity increasing - in geographic as well as socioeconomic terms.
- jojobas 3y ago
  There's no reason every child has to have equal opportunity. A child to a successful couple must have a better hand at life, otherwise why even be trying. Every parent with half a brain wants their child to have the best opportunity. Every group with half a brain joins forces to give their group's children the best opportunity. Also, modern world-city diversity mostly perpetuates the native group vs the uber driver groups, with some exceptions that are to the detriment of the native group. The most revered/successful societies on earth are the complete opposite of diverse.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    > The most revered/successful societies on earth are the complete opposite of diverse. And "primitive" societies, which through evolution shaped how our social capacities operate, also have essentially zero diversity in the modern sense. They are almost by definition culturally uniform, and their members are often closely interrelated.
    - orbisvicis 3y ago
      Hmm sounds like you think a two step process is ideal: evolve independent societies towards uniform, mix the societies and have them compete, reward successful traits with survival. Then rinse/repeat. Though I think the point of evolution is to avoid uniformity. So perhaps a uniform culture is evolutionarily unfit.
      - jojobas 3y ago
        So far in pure evolutionary terms Sub-Saharan Africa is way ahead of everyone else (also made up of quite uniform groups). What traits thereof do you reckon the rest of the world could pinch?
        orbisvicis 3y ago
        I've only ever visited Sub-Saharan Africa through the fiction of various countries, though admittedly that's self-selected by whatever imports are financially successful here. The only common themes I can identify are diversity, vivacity, gregariousness and corruption, and those are hardly what I would deem evolutionary traits. But there's always so much diversity - so many disparate languages and ethnic groups - it seems like urban Africa is quite the melting pot. From this brief list of recently evolved traits [1] (which I can't narrow by geographic region), I honestly can't say that any characterize the zeitgeist of a modern improved homo sapiens. What modern biological traits do you think were evolved in Africa? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > It doesn’t seem likely that this will (or can) happen without diversity increasing That sounds like a complete non sequitur to me. Can you explain how Triangles will become richer by living near Squares? Or, to turn it around, how Squares will become poorer by living among Triangles? More importantly, how does this claim relate to the example I gave? There are societies that are much more diverse than others (urban vs. rural). If diversity itself is a positive, cities should be, in some obvious sense, better societies than villages. Are they?
  - taneq 3y ago
    Wait, I thought the triangles were the wealthy ones? /s (Seriously though, was it implied that there was any material difference between the shapes? I thought they just looked different.)
    - krsrhe 3y ago
      [dead]
  - jrmg 3y ago
    Affluence would not equalize _because_ they’re living near each other. Living near each other, though, seems to me to be something that would have to evolve alongside a more equal society. If we go by your assumption that the squares are richer or happier, it seems obvious to me that if they are biased to only want shapes like them to live near them it’s likely they also don’t want them to associate with them at work. Associating together is surely necessary if the triangles are to better their lot in life? I suppose you might argue that if squares and triangles are equal in talents, they could eventually form separate but equal societies, even if they did not want to associate. If they’re starting off from different baselines that seems unlikely to me though. It also seems to me to carry an assumption that not wanting to associate is at best a morally neutral position, which I don’t believe - but I think you may? To your more specific example: there are so many differences between urban and rural societies that I don’t believe that looking as diversity as the attribute that explains their current states is particularly illuminating, especially if you’re trying to decide which one is ‘better’. I do believe, though, that historical bias has a hand in explaining why even diverse societies like cities are still so stratified on racial lines (so, _not_ diverse).
- bruce511 3y ago
  >> I would like to live in a world where every child has an equal opportunity to make their own way in life. Your wording is very specific, so I'm quoting it here. I see some of the replies missed the subtlety though, so I'd like to emphasise that. You are specifically pointing out the opportunity to "make their own way". You are not implying that every child has the same opportunities. Every child is born different. To different parents. In different communities. In different countries. Those differences are material, and will shape both opportunities and abilities. Genetics means I'll never be a pro athlete. I play sports but no one has (or ever will) give me spotting 'opportunities'. My sporty friend can't draw, and no one us offering her the opportunity of a gallery show. This is probably a good thing as I have no desire to he an athlete and she has no desire to be an artist. That does not negate the opportunity we both have to live in a country, and time, when we can both pursue the life we (realistically) want. 100 years ago, her, not so much. Life is not fair. I was blessed with a good education, a brain to get value from it, and some luck to turn it into a living. In turn we give opportunities to others. Of course all children everywhere do not have the right to choose their own path. Indeed that's a -very- recent development, and is still not universal. External factors still collide all too often. No child wants to be born into poverty, or famine, or war. Or be told their sexuality is offensive. Or be economically excluded because they're not white enough, or too white. Life is not fair. It never will be. And I can't fix most of that. I'm ahead of fair, only because of accidents in genetics, heritage and timing. All I can strive to do is create opportunities for others, and try and play fair, overcoming some of the prejudices that got me here. I am encouraged by the progress of the last 100 years. I hope that progress continues for the next 100.
  - drewdevault 3y ago
    > That does not negate the opportunity we both have to live in a country, and time, when we can both pursue the life we (realistically) want. This is a very narrow and simplistic view of opportunity, both in the present and historical contexts. I assume that you (a man) and your friend, a sporty woman, live in a country and time (the US?) where she enjoys some of the wins of early feminist movements in the US, namely the right to vote, to have a bank account without her husband's permission, etc etc. Life is in perfect harmony and institutional bias has been solved, hooray! It's possibly true that women in the US have it better now than they have at any other time in history. However, the opportunities of women are still not equal to that of men. Perhaps your friend has opportunities to pursue passions in women's sports, but what if she wanted to enter the corporate world and work her way up to management, C-level, etc? She will find it more difficult to pursue this opportunity than you would. Even in women's sports she will have a different (and subjectively worse) experience than a man would have in his sporting career: to this day women in sports earn less than men and are often treated not as athletes but as sexual objects that compete for the attention of male viewers -- for example, in 2021 the European Handball Federation imposed a fine on the Norwegian women's team because they wore shorts instead of bikinis during their match, like the men's uniform. > Of course all children everywhere do not have the right to choose their own path. Indeed that's a -very- recent development, and is still not universal. External factors still collide all too often. Children not having the right to choose their own path is not a recent development, it is a fact which has long been historically true and in the context of this history draws a throughline to reduced opportunities to this day. To give one oft-cited example, consider generational wealth disparities between white and black Americans. White families have had generations to accumulate relative wealth, comfort, and security, dating back to the founding of the United States, wealth in many cases built from slave labor, in other cases from discriminatory laws such as the Homestead Act and redlining. This wealth gives them access to opportunities, such as economic access to higher education, but also access to better (more expensive) neighborhoods with better schools and so on. Black families in the US have been historically unable to build generational wealth due specifically to this history of racism, and today a black child has significantly reduced opportunities for these reasons among others (institutional racism in other forms is still a big deal in the US). A black family has never been able to choose the same paths as a white family in the United States, now and throughout the history of the country. > I am encouraged by the progress of the last 100 years. I hope that progress continues for the next 100. We don't really live in a progressive moment, in the US but also generally. Women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and others, are regressing right now.
orbisvicis 3y ago
This is just a systems-level analysis. Replace "shapist" with "racist", "segregation", or "apartheid" and perhaps your point no longer holds. There are many types of diversity and in the US only eight are protected.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > There are many types of diversity and in the US only eight are protected. Indeed. When people call for more diverse corporate boards, they don't mean "we need more plumbers in there". They mean "we need more of the same evil, soulless, corrupt nihilists, just with different physical traits". Which essentially unmasks the whole concept as a farce.
corethree 3y ago
>Instead, the article (ironically) appears to be written from the biased standpoint that it "ought to be" so This attitude is pervasive in the US due to the history of violence, enslavement and segregation against other races. The Chinese, African American and Japanese have all been victims of such crimes in the US. Internationally the biggest culprit that comes to mind is the systematic slaughter and extermination of the Jewish people aka the holocaust. Thus what you see in modern society is an over correction. In attempt to get away from one extreme we've headed towards our objective and over shot it like a control system overshooting equilibrium. Assuming "diversity" as a default without scientific basis isn't even the extreme I'm talking about here, we're shooting way past that. But you see what your post implies right? Yes it's scientifically valid to ask whether diversity is good or bad. Yes it's very possible to find out via science that diversity is bad. But the consequences of such knowledge, means a valid utilization of segregation enforced on the basis of science. Right? Imagine kicking all black people out of a white neighborhood based off of valid and real science about how diversity is bad. Questioning diversity is scientifically valid and a negative conclusion against diversity is a realistic possible truth we may not want to face. Anyway, I digress... I mentioned we overshot the whole diversity question right? We can all probably agree that it's not good to segregate based off of race. But should we segregate people who identify as a wolves or penguins? https://www.lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Therian_system https://www.lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Therian_system Where is the line drawn? Allowing a transgender female to compete in female sports? Or allowing someone who identifies as a turtle to fly a passenger airplane? When does "diversity" cross the line into scientific absurdity? When should it be classified as insane? That's the big question here and modern society is at a point where all of this is blurry and not obvious yet. Literally I posted a link to a website that lists "therian" as a formal scientific concept. We've definitely overshot here.
drewdevault 3y ago
It has been shown many times that integration reduces bias, see studies on the contact hypothesis. Racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and other examples of bias have been shown by many studies to be dramatically reduced in an integrated context. So long as many of these groups are subject to bias, discrimination, and worse, it is important to engender empathy and understanding among the majority class (white, heterosexual, etc), and move towards equity and justice as a society -- and integrated communities are one of the best ways to achieve this. You can say, "I'm not 'shapeist', but I do live in a community with a strong majority 'square' population", which I'll readily believe -- but there's no substitute for actually talking and living and working with the "triangles" to achieve a deep level of understanding and empathy for their worldview, experiences, and needs. Moreover, your arguments taken to the logical conclusion have been the basis of some of history's worst atrocities, and I would advise you to do more research before seeding this particular thought pool.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > It has been shown many times that integration reduces bias Strawman. Integration isn't the same thing as diversity, and doesn't automatically follow from it either. Different kinds of people living in the same locality doesn't mean they form an "integrated society". Almost every large city is a testament to that. The idea that city people are more empathetic and understanding than villagers because they live in a more diverse environment flies in the face of everyday experience. > Moreover, your arguments taken to the logical conclusion have been the basis of some of history's worst atrocities Appeal to consequences, and thus irrelevant to whether my arguments are correct or not. Not that I accept the ridiculous assertion that my arguments are in any way comparable to the ones you are linking them to. > and I would advise you to do more research before seeding this particular thought pool. Sorry, but I'm not swayed by such pretentious moralizing. In fact, the suppression of inquiry that you are attempting here seems much more in line with "this particular thought pool" than what I wrote.
  - drewdevault 3y ago
    > Strawman. Integration isn't the same thing as diversity, and doesn't automatically follow from it either. Different kinds of people living in the same locality doesn't mean they form an "integrated society". Almost every large city is a testament to that. The idea that city people are more empathetic and understanding than villagers because they live in a more diverse environment flies in the face of everyday experience. You are calling for empiricism but mixing your arguments with anecdotes and "everyday experience". The empirical argument looks at questions like integrated communities as a form of diversity, and finds that it has socially beneficial consequences -- exactly what kind of diversity are you referring to which is distinguishable from integration? Do elaborate so that we can examine that in an empirical lens. > Appeal to consequences, and thus irrelevant to whether my arguments are correct or not. Not that I accept the ridiculous assertion that my arguments are in any way comparable to the ones you are linking them to. Let me draw the connection for you: do you agree or disagree that your initial line of reasoning would support the conclusion that ethnostates are morally neutral? When this reasoning is placed in a historical context, are you blind to the means by which ethnostates have historically arisen?
a-saleh 3y ago
To me the answer is obvious if you are someone who stands in the middle. Maybe you are queer. Maybe you are mixed ethnicities. Migrant. Expat. 3rd-culture kid. If you live in a shapist world, you need to either be lucky enough that there is a shape for you, or that you are able to shape-shift in ways that don't hurt you. If I were reading into things, Nicky, the author, has a small personal game about comming out as gay - and there is pressure from the mom to conform and pressure from boyfriend to come out. And the alternative reality where everybody is accepting would be nicer, right? So I see this as plea for acceptance. And I understand that plea, as I have many ways I don't entirely fit. But I do understand the pull of insular culture and small villages, where diversity is less of a virtue.
_a_a_a_ 3y ago
> I can't say I ever felt that diversity itself was the problem, or the solution for anything. Tolerance (within decent limits) is the goal I guess. I like tolerance societies/people. Monocultures cause intolerance IME. Diversity brings tolerance. Again IME. > It doesn't say a single word about why society should strive to be diverse. Fair enough, but what in your view does a non-diverse culture bring?
aredox 3y ago
Try to read about the "veil of ignorance".
elihu 3y ago
I think it's fine to assume that "I wonder how we can get this group of people to interact more with this other group people" is the sort of problem that most reasonably thoughtful people have thought about at some point in their lives. Regardless of whether you think diversity is desirable all the time in all circumstances, I think there are definitely times where certain kinds of diversity are lacking, and it's clearly a bad thing.
aredox 3y ago
Because humans are diverse. Diversity is not something that is a standard state, it is a construction based on repressing strays and cutting every head that sticks out. Diversity also isn't a stable situation. In the XIVth, everybody was Catholic, then suddenly Protestantism arrived and war of religion tore through society...

by p-e-w 3y ago

jrmg 3y ago

Affluence and opportunity are currently not evenly distributed amongst the human population (or, if you like, the American population). Certain groups, for historical reasons, have way ‘better’ lives than others. I don’t think this is at all arguable. I would like to live in a world where every child has an equal opportunity to make their own way in life. It doesn’t seem likely that this will (or can) happen without diversity increasing - in geographic as well as socioeconomic terms.

jojobas 3y ago
There's no reason every child has to have equal opportunity. A child to a successful couple must have a better hand at life, otherwise why even be trying. Every parent with half a brain wants their child to have the best opportunity. Every group with half a brain joins forces to give their group's children the best opportunity. Also, modern world-city diversity mostly perpetuates the native group vs the uber driver groups, with some exceptions that are to the detriment of the native group. The most revered/successful societies on earth are the complete opposite of diverse.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > The most revered/successful societies on earth are the complete opposite of diverse. And "primitive" societies, which through evolution shaped how our social capacities operate, also have essentially zero diversity in the modern sense. They are almost by definition culturally uniform, and their members are often closely interrelated.
  - orbisvicis 3y ago
    Hmm sounds like you think a two step process is ideal: evolve independent societies towards uniform, mix the societies and have them compete, reward successful traits with survival. Then rinse/repeat. Though I think the point of evolution is to avoid uniformity. So perhaps a uniform culture is evolutionarily unfit.
    - jojobas 3y ago
      So far in pure evolutionary terms Sub-Saharan Africa is way ahead of everyone else (also made up of quite uniform groups). What traits thereof do you reckon the rest of the world could pinch?
      - orbisvicis 3y ago
        I've only ever visited Sub-Saharan Africa through the fiction of various countries, though admittedly that's self-selected by whatever imports are financially successful here. The only common themes I can identify are diversity, vivacity, gregariousness and corruption, and those are hardly what I would deem evolutionary traits. But there's always so much diversity - so many disparate languages and ethnic groups - it seems like urban Africa is quite the melting pot. From this brief list of recently evolved traits [1] (which I can't narrow by geographic region), I honestly can't say that any characterize the zeitgeist of a modern improved homo sapiens. What modern biological traits do you think were evolved in Africa? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution
p-e-w 3y ago
> It doesn’t seem likely that this will (or can) happen without diversity increasing That sounds like a complete non sequitur to me. Can you explain how Triangles will become richer by living near Squares? Or, to turn it around, how Squares will become poorer by living among Triangles? More importantly, how does this claim relate to the example I gave? There are societies that are much more diverse than others (urban vs. rural). If diversity itself is a positive, cities should be, in some obvious sense, better societies than villages. Are they?
- taneq 3y ago
  Wait, I thought the triangles were the wealthy ones? /s (Seriously though, was it implied that there was any material difference between the shapes? I thought they just looked different.)
  - krsrhe 3y ago
    [dead]
- jrmg 3y ago
  Affluence would not equalize _because_ they’re living near each other. Living near each other, though, seems to me to be something that would have to evolve alongside a more equal society. If we go by your assumption that the squares are richer or happier, it seems obvious to me that if they are biased to only want shapes like them to live near them it’s likely they also don’t want them to associate with them at work. Associating together is surely necessary if the triangles are to better their lot in life? I suppose you might argue that if squares and triangles are equal in talents, they could eventually form separate but equal societies, even if they did not want to associate. If they’re starting off from different baselines that seems unlikely to me though. It also seems to me to carry an assumption that not wanting to associate is at best a morally neutral position, which I don’t believe - but I think you may? To your more specific example: there are so many differences between urban and rural societies that I don’t believe that looking as diversity as the attribute that explains their current states is particularly illuminating, especially if you’re trying to decide which one is ‘better’. I do believe, though, that historical bias has a hand in explaining why even diverse societies like cities are still so stratified on racial lines (so, _not_ diverse).
bruce511 3y ago
>> I would like to live in a world where every child has an equal opportunity to make their own way in life. Your wording is very specific, so I'm quoting it here. I see some of the replies missed the subtlety though, so I'd like to emphasise that. You are specifically pointing out the opportunity to "make their own way". You are not implying that every child has the same opportunities. Every child is born different. To different parents. In different communities. In different countries. Those differences are material, and will shape both opportunities and abilities. Genetics means I'll never be a pro athlete. I play sports but no one has (or ever will) give me spotting 'opportunities'. My sporty friend can't draw, and no one us offering her the opportunity of a gallery show. This is probably a good thing as I have no desire to he an athlete and she has no desire to be an artist. That does not negate the opportunity we both have to live in a country, and time, when we can both pursue the life we (realistically) want. 100 years ago, her, not so much. Life is not fair. I was blessed with a good education, a brain to get value from it, and some luck to turn it into a living. In turn we give opportunities to others. Of course all children everywhere do not have the right to choose their own path. Indeed that's a -very- recent development, and is still not universal. External factors still collide all too often. No child wants to be born into poverty, or famine, or war. Or be told their sexuality is offensive. Or be economically excluded because they're not white enough, or too white. Life is not fair. It never will be. And I can't fix most of that. I'm ahead of fair, only because of accidents in genetics, heritage and timing. All I can strive to do is create opportunities for others, and try and play fair, overcoming some of the prejudices that got me here. I am encouraged by the progress of the last 100 years. I hope that progress continues for the next 100.
- drewdevault 3y ago
  > That does not negate the opportunity we both have to live in a country, and time, when we can both pursue the life we (realistically) want. This is a very narrow and simplistic view of opportunity, both in the present and historical contexts. I assume that you (a man) and your friend, a sporty woman, live in a country and time (the US?) where she enjoys some of the wins of early feminist movements in the US, namely the right to vote, to have a bank account without her husband's permission, etc etc. Life is in perfect harmony and institutional bias has been solved, hooray! It's possibly true that women in the US have it better now than they have at any other time in history. However, the opportunities of women are still not equal to that of men. Perhaps your friend has opportunities to pursue passions in women's sports, but what if she wanted to enter the corporate world and work her way up to management, C-level, etc? She will find it more difficult to pursue this opportunity than you would. Even in women's sports she will have a different (and subjectively worse) experience than a man would have in his sporting career: to this day women in sports earn less than men and are often treated not as athletes but as sexual objects that compete for the attention of male viewers -- for example, in 2021 the European Handball Federation imposed a fine on the Norwegian women's team because they wore shorts instead of bikinis during their match, like the men's uniform. > Of course all children everywhere do not have the right to choose their own path. Indeed that's a -very- recent development, and is still not universal. External factors still collide all too often. Children not having the right to choose their own path is not a recent development, it is a fact which has long been historically true and in the context of this history draws a throughline to reduced opportunities to this day. To give one oft-cited example, consider generational wealth disparities between white and black Americans. White families have had generations to accumulate relative wealth, comfort, and security, dating back to the founding of the United States, wealth in many cases built from slave labor, in other cases from discriminatory laws such as the Homestead Act and redlining. This wealth gives them access to opportunities, such as economic access to higher education, but also access to better (more expensive) neighborhoods with better schools and so on. Black families in the US have been historically unable to build generational wealth due specifically to this history of racism, and today a black child has significantly reduced opportunities for these reasons among others (institutional racism in other forms is still a big deal in the US). A black family has never been able to choose the same paths as a white family in the United States, now and throughout the history of the country. > I am encouraged by the progress of the last 100 years. I hope that progress continues for the next 100. We don't really live in a progressive moment, in the US but also generally. Women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and others, are regressing right now.

orbisvicis 3y ago

This is just a systems-level analysis. Replace "shapist" with "racist", "segregation", or "apartheid" and perhaps your point no longer holds. There are many types of diversity and in the US only eight are protected.

p-e-w 3y ago
> There are many types of diversity and in the US only eight are protected. Indeed. When people call for more diverse corporate boards, they don't mean "we need more plumbers in there". They mean "we need more of the same evil, soulless, corrupt nihilists, just with different physical traits". Which essentially unmasks the whole concept as a farce.

corethree 3y ago

>Instead, the article (ironically) appears to be written from the biased standpoint that it "ought to be" so This attitude is pervasive in the US due to the history of violence, enslavement and segregation against other races. The Chinese, African American and Japanese have all been victims of such crimes in the US. Internationally the biggest culprit that comes to mind is the systematic slaughter and extermination of the Jewish people aka the holocaust. Thus what you see in modern society is an over correction. In attempt to get away from one extreme we've headed towards our objective and over shot it like a control system overshooting equilibrium. Assuming "diversity" as a default without scientific basis isn't even the extreme I'm talking about here, we're shooting way past that. But you see what your post implies right? Yes it's scientifically valid to ask whether diversity is good or bad. Yes it's very possible to find out via science that diversity is bad. But the consequences of such knowledge, means a valid utilization of segregation enforced on the basis of science. Right? Imagine kicking all black people out of a white neighborhood based off of valid and real science about how diversity is bad. Questioning diversity is scientifically valid and a negative conclusion against diversity is a realistic possible truth we may not want to face. Anyway, I digress... I mentioned we overshot the whole diversity question right? We can all probably agree that it's not good to segregate based off of race. But should we segregate people who identify as a wolves or penguins? https://www.lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Therian_system https://www.lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Therian_system Where is the line drawn? Allowing a transgender female to compete in female sports? Or allowing someone who identifies as a turtle to fly a passenger airplane? When does "diversity" cross the line into scientific absurdity? When should it be classified as insane? That's the big question here and modern society is at a point where all of this is blurry and not obvious yet. Literally I posted a link to a website that lists "therian" as a formal scientific concept. We've definitely overshot here.

drewdevault 3y ago

It has been shown many times that integration reduces bias, see studies on the contact hypothesis. Racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and other examples of bias have been shown by many studies to be dramatically reduced in an integrated context. So long as many of these groups are subject to bias, discrimination, and worse, it is important to engender empathy and understanding among the majority class (white, heterosexual, etc), and move towards equity and justice as a society -- and integrated communities are one of the best ways to achieve this. You can say, "I'm not 'shapeist', but I do live in a community with a strong majority 'square' population", which I'll readily believe -- but there's no substitute for actually talking and living and working with the "triangles" to achieve a deep level of understanding and empathy for their worldview, experiences, and needs. Moreover, your arguments taken to the logical conclusion have been the basis of some of history's worst atrocities, and I would advise you to do more research before seeding this particular thought pool.

p-e-w 3y ago
> It has been shown many times that integration reduces bias Strawman. Integration isn't the same thing as diversity, and doesn't automatically follow from it either. Different kinds of people living in the same locality doesn't mean they form an "integrated society". Almost every large city is a testament to that. The idea that city people are more empathetic and understanding than villagers because they live in a more diverse environment flies in the face of everyday experience. > Moreover, your arguments taken to the logical conclusion have been the basis of some of history's worst atrocities Appeal to consequences, and thus irrelevant to whether my arguments are correct or not. Not that I accept the ridiculous assertion that my arguments are in any way comparable to the ones you are linking them to. > and I would advise you to do more research before seeding this particular thought pool. Sorry, but I'm not swayed by such pretentious moralizing. In fact, the suppression of inquiry that you are attempting here seems much more in line with "this particular thought pool" than what I wrote.
- drewdevault 3y ago
  > Strawman. Integration isn't the same thing as diversity, and doesn't automatically follow from it either. Different kinds of people living in the same locality doesn't mean they form an "integrated society". Almost every large city is a testament to that. The idea that city people are more empathetic and understanding than villagers because they live in a more diverse environment flies in the face of everyday experience. You are calling for empiricism but mixing your arguments with anecdotes and "everyday experience". The empirical argument looks at questions like integrated communities as a form of diversity, and finds that it has socially beneficial consequences -- exactly what kind of diversity are you referring to which is distinguishable from integration? Do elaborate so that we can examine that in an empirical lens. > Appeal to consequences, and thus irrelevant to whether my arguments are correct or not. Not that I accept the ridiculous assertion that my arguments are in any way comparable to the ones you are linking them to. Let me draw the connection for you: do you agree or disagree that your initial line of reasoning would support the conclusion that ethnostates are morally neutral? When this reasoning is placed in a historical context, are you blind to the means by which ethnostates have historically arisen?

a-saleh 3y ago

To me the answer is obvious if you are someone who stands in the middle. Maybe you are queer. Maybe you are mixed ethnicities. Migrant. Expat. 3rd-culture kid. If you live in a shapist world, you need to either be lucky enough that there is a shape for you, or that you are able to shape-shift in ways that don't hurt you. If I were reading into things, Nicky, the author, has a small personal game about comming out as gay - and there is pressure from the mom to conform and pressure from boyfriend to come out. And the alternative reality where everybody is accepting would be nicer, right? So I see this as plea for acceptance. And I understand that plea, as I have many ways I don't entirely fit. But I do understand the pull of insular culture and small villages, where diversity is less of a virtue.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago

> I can't say I ever felt that diversity itself was the problem, or the solution for anything. Tolerance (within decent limits) is the goal I guess. I like tolerance societies/people. Monocultures cause intolerance IME. Diversity brings tolerance. Again IME. > It doesn't say a single word about why society should strive to be diverse. Fair enough, but what in your view does a non-diverse culture bring?

aredox 3y ago

Try to read about the "veil of ignorance".

elihu 3y ago

I think it's fine to assume that "I wonder how we can get this group of people to interact more with this other group people" is the sort of problem that most reasonably thoughtful people have thought about at some point in their lives. Regardless of whether you think diversity is desirable all the time in all circumstances, I think there are definitely times where certain kinds of diversity are lacking, and it's clearly a bad thing.

aredox 3y ago

Because humans are diverse. Diversity is not something that is a standard state, it is a construction based on repressing strays and cutting every head that sticks out. Diversity also isn't a stable situation. In the XIVth, everybody was Catholic, then suddenly Protestantism arrived and war of religion tore through society...