Hong Wu wrote:Just something to maybe add to the list of leftist oxymorons. In order for things to be diverse, they have to be different. If they're different, they're not the same and if they're not the same, they are by definition not completely equal with each other, right?
The best counter-argument I have been able to formulate to this is that diversity would lead to temporary inequality, which is supposed to be alleviated. I think however that this segways into another argument I made some time ago, which is that the metaphysics of progressivism has no feasible end in sight, thereby robbing it of any concept of the peak of all things (God, etc.) and therefore making every extant and possible being an inferior to future beings, creating an eternal chain of subservients.
Although very subtle, I do believe that this metaphysical presumption is vaguely realized through progressive's growing totalitarian tendencies.
Dear @Hong Wu
What you are pointing out is that equal inclusion
DOES NOT MEAN being all the same. You're right, it makes no sense.
When we treat people or groups with EQUAL RESPECT
and EQUAL REPRESENTATION, that means they will Represent THEMSELVES,
their own interests, their own beliefs, USING THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.
So naturally this will be diverse, as unique as each individual is.
I would compare inclusion of diversity with working with the
FULL ORCHESTRA to play all parts of the symphony in harmony.
The Flutes will play completely different music, notes and key
from the Trumpets. And the DRUM part looks nothing like the other instruments.
These are all different. None are the same.
Yet in a musical composition, it is necessary to include and blend
ALL the instruments and their parts to make the whole, which is
GREATER than the sum of the parts.
Equal inclusion and respect for the role of each section,
each musician, and the purpose of each line of melody or harmony
are ALL important. NONE can be left out or the symphony is incomplete.
But that doesn't make the parts the SAME.