Diversity is good.
Diversity means diversity of ideas.
Ergo, you will disagree vehemently with people, and this is a good thing under the framework of diversity.
Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human, and if you are able to do this your life will be more pleasant.
Disagreement is a good thing, it is society’s mechanism for decision making in complex circumstances.
No.
Diversity has benefits and costs - it is neither good nor bad.
People, or groups of people in a democracy, need to decide what level of diversity they would like to pursue.
Personally, as someone who can live anywhere, I've chosen (and continue to choose) a very diverse place (the United States - specifically California).
I like living with people who invent jazz music and snowboarding and the Internet and I am willing to pay costs like some decreased degree of social cohesion and trust.
Other people, or groups, might have a different cost/benefit analysis and that is not wrong - nor is it wrong to pursue those aims democratically.
This is how the USA votes, and it's hard for people to separate what amounts to a behavior they must abide to 25% of their adult lives from the remaining time.
This is how we maintain our two parties: the GOP, and the people who don't have much else in common besides their dislike of the GOP.
We are become reddit.
If your disagreement with that person is about whether someone else is considered less of a human than they are (by dint of race, wealth, sexuality, whatever), it's probably ok to consider them morally bankrupt on that basis.
If you refuse to engage with these people and view them all as sub-human there's no path forward for society.
A pluralistic society can handle many different viewpoints, but it cannot give them equal value or acceptance.
This may or may not be the case with ICE, the GOP, etc. but fundamentally there are some people who should not be engaged with in this way.
Very few people think they aren't the good guys in their own narratives, and what's moral isn't an obvious choice in a lot of situations.
Most people you violently disagree with have probably a different view of fairness than you do, and think that your opinions and goals are plainly unfair, as much as you think the same about them.
Maybe a point of view is crafted through a life's worth of conditioning and experience. We seem comfortable accepting that fact when considering social conditioning over other issues, but when it comes to conservatism we draw the line - they are the evil others.
Unable to see how they are the sum of their life's experiences we draw up the lines, dig in our heels and choose our side - and in doing so force the other group to take a side.
I have a lot of family who have views which would terrify liberals, but I know these people are also not evil but just have had their own life circumstances shape their views.
Maybe people need to travel outside their comfort zones a little more...
I would say that places in the "hallowed gardens of equality" are for those who believe in equality, not those who consider any set of other people as lesser.
> and in doing so force the other group to take a side.
No-one forces anyone to be racist, homophobic, etc.
> have had their own life circumstances shape their views.
That sounds like the "economic anxiety" excuse for racism.
What makes this particularly interesting is that those beliefs actually vary a lot more than the people pushing for this realize. There's actually this argument that they shouldn't have to spell out what the correct beliefs actually are to justify this since they're obvious to everyone, and any demand to be specific is just an attempt by wrongthinkers to pretend they don't know why they're supporting evil. This means any differences only get discovered when that specific situation comes up, and can just get pinned on the other side being evil monsters masquerading as decent people when an unreconciled divide does appear. Also, they change over time rapidly enough that the mandatory non-bigoted views from even a few years ago are beyond the pale in critical ways now.
Do you believe that you hold your beliefs because of some great achievement, and not "just because"? Do you believe that you are as smart as you are because of $somethingYouDid and not because of genetic and environmental lotteries?
I believe that I hold my current beliefs because I have considered my old beliefs and tried to work on improving them. As someone who grew up in 70s UK, I grew up seeing casual racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. on TV every day and, yeah, that definitely helped shape, if not specific opinions about the worth of people, then certainly a casual carelessness - it would be a rare week at school without a new racist joke, for example.
Thankfully I've seen since that I was wrong and have tried to be better (but I fully admit I have a long way to go.)
Like what? What life experiences have shaped their views to make them terrifying to liberals? I'm genuinely curious because the people most likely to have actual lived experiences to support "views which would terrify liberals" are generally liberal and live in cities while those who have "views which would terrify liberals" don't generally have very many relevant lived experiences to speak of.
Growing up with a homophobic government and homophobic environment like Russia where it is the norm?
Growing up in countries where there is a very hated "other" tribe like in Israel?
Outside of the "developed" world a lot of non-liberal stances are very alive and practised. But should we condemn a vast fraction of these people who hold racist or homophobic views in environments where they are accepted or even encouraged?
Plenty of people have left those places and adopted more liberal stances. But this times time and acclimatisation. And education. So much education.
But when you write people off or morally judge them, you usually encourage them to dig in their heels because no one likes to be told their life and upbringing is wrong and a lie.
I have seen relatives' views on homophobia soften over the years but I know from experience flat out telling them they are wrong got nowhere. But they came from a time when everyone was supposed to have only one boyfriend/girlfriend into spouse for their whole life, and living was about making sure food was on your table that night. They had society force feed some ideal on them and never given the space to contemplate otherwise.
I find your argument convincing. I just don’t understand why looking at the context of an individual’s upbringing is acceptable when explaining why aunt Becky is racist but isn’t when explaining why Mohammed is angry.
A klansman like Robert Byrd turned his life around. This is after Al Gore's father and he filibustered the civil rights act. Byrd went on to mentor Hillary Clinton, and I assume Al Gore's father was an influence on his son - the Vice President of the United States and the first lady, who went on to become a Senator from New York and then almost became President of the United States. You have a candidate right now who has a murky past when it comes to school segregation - as highlighted by his own running mate!
The funny thing is - the Facebook employees fighting with Zuckerberg most likely support all of these people politically, yet the people who espouse similar views today are suddenly irredeemable?
This idea that you can cancel the morally bankrupt out of existence is rooted in some kind of blind weakness. If people don't want to engage with them, that's fine, sit down and let the rest of us clean up. I'm not afraid of engaging with white supremacists, they always lose anyway. Their ideas are weak, dumb and not at all compelling, and the more we let them speak, the weaker their allure will be. History has already proved this. Facebook isn't magic - their ideas are still trash.
The current state of the USA would disagree with you.
> the more we let them speak, the weaker their allure will be.
Except, somehow, they keep getting elected.
Kind of like how there's a subset of a certain political party that believes fetuses have the same right to life as infants.
Or how some people believe someone who comes from a statistically high crime demographic, has $120 in their checking account and face tattoos has the same right to own a gun as someone from a low crime demographic who can take a weekend class, pay $200 and ace an interview with the police chief?
My point is that it's not as simple as you are stating it is. Whichever side of an issue you are on the other side believes that they are right and you are wrong and that you are the oppressors. They have good logical reasons to reach this conclusion and if you peel back the logic you get to fundamentally incompatble differences of opinion.
[0] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
Young black men
This is drilled into the head of every cop before they leave the academy.
If you look at these statics and think to yourself, "the fact that 87% of murders, 99% of forced rapes, and 77% of assaults are committed by men is terribly misleading because as a category it doesn't make sense to lump all men together when they're so different" then why the hell does "black men" make any more sense?
Good advice is to spend a reasonable amount of time on defining precisely what is meant by equality. You will likely find you are arguing past each other because your life experience has given you a different definition than someone else.
This is more true over internet communication, because most human-human communication is non-verbal, and text compresses this communication to oblivion.