Even then it'll either be a disagreement on aesthetics, or one position will be shown to be objectively correct. It's why lolbertardianism and neo-koshervatism are now relics of the past.
It sounds kind of good if like SM1 you're charitable in interpreting it to mean diversity of viewpoint or different perspectives or backgrounds. For instance, a botanist working with a cryptographer will have much better chance at the Voynich manuscript than two cryptographers.
But they mean it in the sense that "my truth" and "the truth" are better than just the truth. "My truth" as a synonym for opinion is never a positive contribution.
I think there's a bit of confusion, when I say 'diversity of opinion', I mean amongst those that CAN debate.
A monarchist, a conservative, A democracy advocate, A libertarian etc can all debate and even come to a consensus on issues.
Feminists DON'T debate, communists don't, leftists don't. They only seek subjugation so as such, can ONLY be treated as a hostile entity with no concessions.
It's more or less an academic debate in the first case anyways. What is of most benefit to the people is the optimal system, everything else is window dressing. Any nation-state requires homogeneity of culture and values. And primarily race.
When has "diversity," "change" or "stop hate speech" ever worked out well in the past? Genuine question.
Diversity of opinion is the ONLY one that truly matters as the only reason we are having to go hardline is the opposing side rejects ALL debate.
Because we can, they can't.
Even then it'll either be a disagreement on aesthetics, or one position will be shown to be objectively correct. It's why lolbertardianism and neo-koshervatism are now relics of the past.
Diversity of opinion is their language.
It sounds kind of good if like SM1 you're charitable in interpreting it to mean diversity of viewpoint or different perspectives or backgrounds. For instance, a botanist working with a cryptographer will have much better chance at the Voynich manuscript than two cryptographers.
But they mean it in the sense that "my truth" and "the truth" are better than just the truth. "My truth" as a synonym for opinion is never a positive contribution.
I don't believe in diversity of political opinions for the workplace. If you're a feminist, you should be shut out.
Go ahead and disagree with me, but it's the bare minimum we need to claw our way back.
I think there's a bit of confusion, when I say 'diversity of opinion', I mean amongst those that CAN debate.
A monarchist, a conservative, A democracy advocate, A libertarian etc can all debate and even come to a consensus on issues.
Feminists DON'T debate, communists don't, leftists don't. They only seek subjugation so as such, can ONLY be treated as a hostile entity with no concessions.
It's more or less an academic debate in the first case anyways. What is of most benefit to the people is the optimal system, everything else is window dressing. Any nation-state requires homogeneity of culture and values. And primarily race.
Yeah fair enough. I look down on center left opinions too though