[ralusek]

Ok, so, diversity of gender and race is just good, period? Do you mean that people should be represented by race and gender in accordance with their population makeup? i.e. 13% of doctors should be black, and 50% of nurses should be male? At what cost, and what makes you think that would be a good thing?

For one, Indian immigrants in the US disproportionately enter medicine, as do other Asians, in total constituting 17% of doctors. This is despite Asians constituting 6% of the population. 5% of doctors are black, despite constituting 13% of the population. In accordance with most advocating diversity for the sake of diversity, the reason for the disparity is assumed post hoc to have been due to discrimination...but why? It's as if the inputs have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the outcomes. In order to seek population parity, that would mean arbitrarily capping the number of Asian doctors, and arbitrarily pulling black doctors from a pool of applicants that literally doesn't exist.

Rather than a deontological approach, of perhaps simply ensuring that the hiring process is as blind and devoid of bias as possible, diversity advocates are instead interested in diversity for the sake of diversity.

Again, this is political beyond just "being a good person" or not.

[gremloni]

Yes it’s just good for it’s own sake. The aim has to be the mitigation of problems that will arise from integrated living like that.

[ralusek]

This is fucking stupid.

[gremloni]

No you’re a dissembling idiot trying to wheedle your bigotry. This will go fine for a while but you’ll become a stone hearted shell in due time.

[ralusek]

What bigotry, exactly?