-
hengsheng120 wrote on 2010-09-23 01:43
Quote from Virtue;163164:
@Phunkie
"And on a staff team, it is good to have people with different opinions, Virtue. That's what makes a government. Why have a staff team if it's just one person deciding the rules?"
But companies -aren't- run by democratic consensus, they're run by a board of directors setting policy and managers enforcing their own micro-policy. Sure, some many take ideas into account, but it's not as if a lower-rung employee can coerce a manager into accepting his decisions through a vote. So the comparison to modern democracy is false. It's more like a constitutional monarchy.
From a business perspective, diversity does bring in a variety of benefits. Cultural and language diversity among employees allows a wider consumer marketing base and thus more money from appealing to a larger consumer base. With enough ability and capital, it can even allow for an international market and globalization of the business. Also, knowledge and experience diversity increases the rate of innovation, creativity, and scalability of a business, allowing for faster growth.
For example, Nexon.
-
Virtue wrote on 2010-09-23 16:53
Quote from Zid;163486:
I think Virtue's asking about how a diverse demography in a society (example would be the US) is better than a "pure" society, such as all-white.
I can state an example against the idea of non-diversity. It would make said non-diverse population hostile to outside groups, for the fear of corrupting dilution. In itself, hostility is bad news anyway. I don't think anybody wants a section of humanity to be grow this kind of fear of other races, and becoming hostile to them, to the point of homicidal intentions and actions.
Yes, Zid's got what I meant. I don't mean homogenity as in that we should all be exactly the same. I meant it as in a "pure" society like asians only VS a mixed one with asians&blacks&whites&etc.
Your example against it is non-sequitur though. Homogenous societies are more peaceful than diverse ones. Look at Sudan, the Former Yugoslavia or the Philippines. Being 'exposed' to 'diverse racial elements' hasn't made them any more trusting.
-
Magenera wrote on 2010-09-23 17:11
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHA, you are joking right? In their own subculture diversity exist, and so does hatred for anything that is different. In another perspective, humans hate everything, EVERYTHING, being the same ethnicity, with the same culture, origins, and country, and they will hate them as much as they hate the other ethnic background. On that point, having the same ethnic society, means nothing cause they are as diverse as the ideas that has come about in history. Also there is a subculture to every macro-culture, so in the end there are not the same. On another note, humans are very similar to each other by a small fracture, the best to note is the skull, as there is only three types of skulls that existed for humans to state whether they where either, Caucasian, black, or Native/Asian descent.
-
Athde wrote on 2010-09-23 17:14
Oh race-wise, yah, it's better. Although it doesn't allow people to learn to accept one another.
If it was worldwide though, I guess we'd be living in relative peace? Maybe?
-
Virtue wrote on 2010-09-23 18:56
Quote from Magenera;163977:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHA, you are joking right? In their own subculture diversity exist, and so does hatred for anything that is different. In another perspective, humans hate everything, EVERYTHING, being the same ethnicity, with the same culture, origins, and country, and they will hate them as much as they hate the other ethnic background. On that point, having the same ethnic society, means nothing cause they are as diverse as the ideas that has come about in history. Also there is a subculture to every macro-culture, so in the end there are not the same. On another note, humans are very similar to each other by a small fracture, the best to note is the skull, as there is only three types of skulls that existed for humans to state whether they where either, Caucasian, black, or Native/Asian descent.
Statistics say otherwise, bro. The most stable societies are the ones which are culturally and racially homogeneous. Just look at any homogeneous country. Example: Norway.
If there is a maximum of unification in a country or a cultural circle this feeling of unification will stand above hatred. If people see themselves as one they wont hate themselves. There will always be conflicts and war. People will satisfy their hunger for hate on the outside and not the inside. But as long there is cultural diversity there can be no unification achieved. You're absolutely delusional.
Not to forget that homogeneous white countries are considered the best countries to live in. Japan has been coming in strong though, they are, however, extreme homogeneous too.
-
Shirayuki wrote on 2010-09-23 19:00
Quote from Virtue;164044:
Statistics say otherwise, bro. The most stable societies are the ones which are culturally and racially homogeneous. Just look at any homogeneous country. Example: Norway.
If there is a maximum of unification in a country or a cultural circle this feeling of unification will stand above hatred. If people see themselves as one they wont hate themselves. There will always be conflicts and war. People will satisfy their hunger for hate on the outside and not the inside. But as long there is cultural diversity there can be no unification achieved. You're absolutely delusional.
Unification can be reacher under a universal goal though... maybeh.
-
Zid wrote on 2010-09-23 19:05
Quote from Virtue;163956:
Your example against it is non-sequitur though. Homogeneous societies are more peaceful than diverse ones. Look at Sudan, the Former Yugoslavia or the Philippines. Being 'exposed' to 'diverse racial elements' hasn't made them any more trusting.
That's a good point. There are examples where a homogeneous society is better off left to itself (such as Indian tribes before the European Age of Exploration), and pretty much well off except for a few disagreements to skirmishes, here and there.
However, then there are counterexamples. A few factors can make homogeneous societies seem doable, but then in our point in humanity's time line, we have to have encountered those different from the said society. Hostility is a given; no reasonable closed-minded entity of a homogeneous society would think "They're different from my group, but that's okay!" I can say the Nazis was an example of that, where people of the mindset to be a pure racial culture can do the extreme, which is genocide of those different from them. Typically, their idea of fascism could be proven to help their homogeneous society to prosper, so that's a point for such societies. But factors led them to be hostile and had outside people judge that homogeneous societies would do more harm than good.
I can point out other examples where maybe diversity wasn't really such a good idea. Israel is a good modern example. But then, there are examples where diversity became an ideal instead. Such as the acceptance of black people with white people in the US or, earlier, Great Britain. Today, because of such acceptance, there's far less hostilities between the two groups now.
Sure, there's still racial disagreements and violence today, but to a far less extent now. While you can point out that this acceptance has adverse effects (such as insurance strain, unemployment benefits strain, etc.), many people look upon that blacks can now work in the same place as whites, for the same effort and pay. And that blacks are able to contribute to society as well, and innovate as well, too. A lot of people believe the pros of forgoing homogeneous societies for diverse ones outweigh the cons by a significant margin.
-
Magenera wrote on 2010-09-23 19:05
Quote from Athde;163979:
Oh race-wise, yah, it's better. Although it doesn't allow people to learn to accept one another.
If it was worldwide though, I guess we'd be living in relative peace? Maybe?
No, we won't, you need to have the same mindset in order to have that peace. People of the same ethnic ground will still be different, to which they will be hated upon by their peers, and you will have genocide, intolerance, and discrimination. The greatest example will be the world of today.
-
Virtue wrote on 2010-09-23 19:28
Quote from Zid;164051:
That's a good point. There are examples where a homogeneous society is better off left to itself (such as Indian tribes before the European Age of Exploration), and pretty much well off except for a few disagreements to skirmishes, here and there.
However, then there are counterexamples. A few factors can make homogeneous societies seem doable, but then in our point in humanity's time line, we have to have encountered those different from the said society. Hostility is a given; no reasonable closed-minded entity of a homogeneous society would think "They're different from my group, but that's okay!" I can say the Nazis was an example of that, where people of the mindset to be a pure racial culture can do the extreme, which is genocide of those different from them. Typically, their idea of fascism could be proven to help their homogeneous society to prosper, so that's a point for such societies. But factors led them to be hostile and had outside people judge that homogeneous societies would do more harm than good.
I can point out other examples where maybe diversity wasn't really such a good idea. Israel is a good modern example. But then, there are examples where diversity became an ideal instead. Such as the acceptance of black people with white people in the US or, earlier, Great Britain. Today, because of such acceptance, there's far less hostilities between the two groups now.
Sure, there's still racial disagreements and violence today, but to a far less extent now. While you can point out that this acceptance has adverse effects (such as insurance strain, unemployment benefits strain, etc.), many people look upon that blacks can now work in the same place as whites, for the same effort and pay. And that blacks are able to contribute to society as well, and innovate as well, too. A lot of people believe the pros of forgoing homogeneous societies for diverse ones outweigh the cons by a significant margin.
I agree somewhat. I'm not a raging xenophobe. There are probably examples of racially and culturally mixed societies doing well, and I don't think all immigration is bad. I just think that in general, homogeneity is best.
Personally, I think there should be
stronger immigration laws so that it ensures we get 'higher quality' immigrants instead of trash. Blacks are 12% of the US population and yet make up 40.21% of the us prison population. You see what I mean?
Quote from Magenera;164053:
No, we won't, you need to have the same mindset in order to have that peace. People of the same ethnic ground will still be different, to which they will be hated upon by their peers, and you will have genocide, intolerance, and discrimination. The greatest example will be the world of today.
Yup, them Japanese been genociding themselves all decade right?
-
Magenera wrote on 2010-09-23 19:34
Quote from Virtue;164044:
Statistics say otherwise, bro. The most stable societies are the ones which are culturally and racially homogeneous. Just look at any homogeneous country. Example: Norway.
If there is a maximum of unification in a country or a cultural circle this feeling of unification will stand above hatred. If people see themselves as one they wont hate themselves. There will always be conflicts and war. People will satisfy their hunger for hate on the outside and not the inside. But as long there is cultural diversity there can be no unification achieved. You're absolutely delusional.
Not to forget that homogeneous white countries are considered the best countries to live in. Japan has been coming in strong though, they are, however, extreme homogeneous too.
They are also diverse, in ideals, politics, and the way they do things. Built upon them having gotten many different culture background to reach where they are. I should also mention about not fitting into the norm, as it can have a backlash on those who doesn't follow it. That being said, what do you say about the middle-east then? Eastern Asia as a whole? Because, China, Taiwan, and South Korea, doesn't like Japan, because they deny the atrocities they committed in WW2. Here is a point for you, Macro-culture is the one we see the big freaking generalization of what we know about, and is created by the micro-cultures that exist within. Micro cultures are diverse, and with out them, there is no culture, and no change. I recommend you take a sociology class before, you talk about diversity is bad, and doesn't contribute to that peaceful homogeneous society.
-
Chillax wrote on 2010-09-23 20:54
Quote from Virtue;164044:
Statistics say otherwise, bro. The most stable societies are the ones which are culturally and racially homogeneous. Just look at any homogeneous country. Example: Norway.
If there is a maximum of unification in a country or a cultural circle this feeling of unification will stand above hatred. If people see themselves as one they wont hate themselves. There will always be conflicts and war. People will satisfy their hunger for hate on the outside and not the inside. But as long there is cultural diversity there can be no unification achieved. You're absolutely delusional.
Not to forget that homogeneous white countries are considered the best countries to live in. Japan has been coming in strong though, they are, however, extreme homogeneous too.
Do take into account population size. Norway is incredibly small in comparison to the other countries you listed. Japan has its fair share of problems as well; it's just a racial taboo to report a lot of them.
-
Phunkie wrote on 2010-09-23 21:43
Keep in mind that the law isn't fair in all countries, Virtue. That very example you gave about blacks forming above 40% of the population in jails, for example.
African-American people are still treated unfairly in the United States. Police brutality, all that sort still occurs.
It's quite sad actually. Not only that, but a lot of people get arrested for possession of drugs and etc.
Also, black people didn't really immigrate to America by choice.
Nonetheless, I like the mixing of cultures. I guess that's why I love the United States. Different kinds of people, different backgrounds, a chance to learn about different customs and cultures. More understanding and less conflict therefore, I would say.
You don't see all the Mexicans in my home neighborhood fighting with the African-Americans. There will always be bad people who aim to hurt others, but the majority is just good people who don't mind others so much.
I feel like homogeneous societies are more prone to being xenophobic and I don't like that at all. I'd feel like an outcast and possibly fearful of everyone else since I wouldn't belong.
I mean, you always hear how people say, oh, I hate tourists. They're always so lost, they're always walking so slow. I hear people say that even here in NYC. I can only imagine what people would say about an African neighbor who moves into an all-white community. Bad things probably.
I like me some culturally diverse cities and countries. And food, of course.
-
Magenera wrote on 2010-09-24 00:41
Probably my last post on this thread, so I will call it my BIG FINALE!! The phrase diversity is strength, stems from ideas, culture, genetics, religion, and understanding of our fellow humans. A homogeneous society is diverse, in culture, history, and idealism, the culture of today, didn't became like this by living under a rock, and denying the rest of the world. History is a prime example that change most of the time is violent, but the reward speaks for itself. We live in a world where we can just about contact anyone from around the world, this site being a prime example. We have mix in culture's from around the world to create the one we have as of now. This has made us better, and it has made us stronger. For we cannot deny the world, nor can we not be denied by the world, for we have impact to the world, and has been impacted by world whether it has been bad, or good. You cannot denied that we are far stronger than our counterparts in the last 2 decades.
For those who say that a homogeneous ethnic society is better because of how peaceful it is, and to those who say that a homogeneous culture is better, to those who say that a homogeneous ideal is better. You have denied change, you have denied origin, and you have denied history, to plainly put it, you have denied the world Eco-system existent. For we are all different, and we all bring in to the table to which we call Earth. Diversity is what made us exist, and diversity is what keeps us strong.:awesome: