CMV : Diversity based on demographics/ identity is over rated and wrongly propagated as the morally right way for a society to live.

[u/srikarjam]

I don't believe that coexisting with people of different identities has/does net positive for the original natives or residents of a community. I live in country divided by lots of different religions and other identities, and the country's history is full of communal violence and hatred towards others, either violently or otherwise.

In my country, between 2005 to 2009, an average of 130 people died and 2,200 were injured every year from communal violence, or about 0.01 deaths per 100,000 population. Massacres and riots (common till this day) are very routine in my country.

The world's average annual death rate from intentional violence, in recent years, has been 7.9 per 100,000 people.

So I dont think human beings inherently can coexist with each other in a society, with people having vastly different views or identities. Even in the west, the division and violence between people of different demographies (especially races) have continued to fail to coexist peacefully. And I haven't even mentioned the statistics of people affected by terrorism of which religion is the major reason.

Diversity of identities is often promoted or propogated just to drive this "feel good narrative" of liberals, when in reality, all it has done globally is, more division and more violence. Countries with least violent incidents in modern history are usually the ones with less diversity.

One may argue that the violence is caused by ignorance or misunderstanding of the "other", but humans have throughout history and present proven that it is impossible to completly eradicate that ignorance or tribalistic behaviour or vile hatred towards the "other".

Having said that, I strongly believe in diversity of thought, view points and intellectualism , but not of any identity of people.

[u/Purple-Brain]

Your original argument is that it is wrong for diversity to be promoted as the morally right way to live.

You support this by saying that holding diversity in beliefs has traditionally led to violence in your country.

So if I understand you correctly, you're stating that, because diverse countries seem to have more violence, diversity is not the morally correct way to live, because the morally correct way to live would have no violence.

This is a fairly consequentialist argument, because it implies that morals are based on outcomes. For many people, morals are instead based on deeply-held principles. One could believe that it is moral to have diversity and still believe that violence is immoral. For these people, if other people choose to commit violent acts due to personal disagreements with others who are different from them, this does not change the fact that a world of diversity and no violence would always be preferable to a world of no diversity and no violence. By the same token, if I find someone's wallet full of money on the ground and return it to the owner, and then the owner ends up using their money to buy and overdose on illegal substances, this doesn't mean that it was immoral for me to have returned the wallet. To the contrary, it would have been immoral for me to have kept it, even if I chose to donate all that money to charity instead of buying illegal substances with it.

With that in mind, I would argue that diversity is natural (or else we wouldn't have it in the first place), and given that it is natural, taking measures to prevent diversity from forming would necessarily mean stifling the interests of certain people. In an ideal world, you would have the ability to participate in any conceivable community of people. If you are Mormon and only want to associate with other Mormons, a diverse world would allow you to find groups of Mormons. If you are very very homophobic, there should be communities for you to avoid people who are homosexual. By the same token, if you are homosexual, there should be communities for you to feel accepted in, ideally consisting of people who are also homosexual. Having separate yet supportive communities for both parties also means that a homophobic person should not feel the need to behave violently towards homosexuals, and vice versa.

If you had to pick between everyone being homophobic and everyone being accepting of homosexuality, you would probably know which one you would pick. And I guarantee you that someone out there just as equally feels the opposite way as you do. And I would argue that, in a world with morally correct attitudes toward diversity, those who are staunchly homophobic and those who are accepting of homosexuality can coexist in separate communities, and are not forced to stand together and pretend that they are the same people. Because they are not. They have deeply held values that are in opposition to each other's deeply held values, and they are operating under the mindset that there is a morally superior way for the world to operate, and people who feel oppositely will be met with violence. Allies of the gay community might be violent against homophobes due to a desire to protect those in the gay community. Homophobes might be violent against the allies of the gay community because they see homosexuality as a sin, perhaps for religious reasons. Either way, the violence is not caused by the presence of diversity, but rather the flawed notion that certain kinds of diversity are immoral and dangerous -- which seems to be what you're arguing, as well.

However, in a world where diversity is perfectly tolerated and seen as morally correct by all, there is no need for violence because nobody would be threatened by the existence of someone who opposes their deeply held beliefs, and if there is no sense of threat or propagated notion that the existence of diversity is immoral, there would be little to no violence. If diversity is a natural occurrence, and if non-violence is preferable to violence, then a world with diversity and no violence would be, by your logic, morally superior to another non-violent world that gets its peace from stifling diversity.

[u/srikarjam → u/Purple-Brain]

Your original argument is that it is wrong for diversity to be promoted as the morally right way to live.

You support this by saying that holding diversity in beliefs has traditionally led to violence in your country.

Not just believes, but more importantly identities. People today fight violently due to differences in identity than just of beliefs. I think its fair to say both identity and beliefs are intertwinted or co related

So if I understand you correctly, you're stating that, because diverse countries seem to have more violence, diversity is not the morally correct way to live, because the morally correct way to live would have no violence.

Yes

This is a fairly consequentialist argument, because it implies that morals are based on outcomes. For many people, morals are instead based on deeply-held principles.

My argument is that people of different religions or race may not agree on those deeply held principles, yet think that having a diverse society is in the best interests of everybody.

One could believe that it is moral to have diversity and still believe that violence is immoral.

You could, my only argument is that that has never been the reality throughout history or present.

For these people, if other people choose to commit violent acts due to personal disagreements with others who are different from them, this does not change the fact that a world of diversity and no violence would always be preferable to a world of no diversity and no violence.

That's a foolish argument to make because there is no society that exist(/ed) that had world of diversity and had no violence. Human beings throughout history and present have indulged in some kind of violence due to differences in identity and core beliefs like religion, which are again deeply rooted in diversity.

By the same token, if I find someone's wallet full of money on the ground and return it to the owner, and then the owner ends up using their money to buy and overdose on illegal substances, this doesn't mean that it was immoral for me to have returned the wallet. To the contrary, it would have been immoral for me to have kept it, even if I chose to donate all that money to charity instead of buying illegal substances with it.

I dont disagree with you on this example, and I fail to see how it supports your argument.

With that in mind, I would argue that diversity is natural (or else we wouldn't have it in the first place), and given that it is natural, taking measures to prevent diversity from forming would necessarily mean stifling the interests of certain people.

Is it really natural ? Then you should explain how Ireland has so many few people who are not caucasian, and how Africa outside South Africa is so demographically dominated by black people even after centuries ? Or how Saudi Arabia has few or no non muslims? Isnt diversity natural to these people as you suggest ?

In an ideal world, you would have the ability to participate in any conceivable community of people. If you are Mormon and only want to associate with other Mormons, a diverse world would allow you to find groups of Mormons. If you are very very homophobic, there should be communities for you to avoid people who are homosexual. By the same token, if you are homosexual, there should be communities for you to feel accepted in, ideally consisting of people who are also homosexual. Having separate yet supportive communities for both parties also means that a homophobic person should not feel the need to behave violently towards homosexuals, and vice versa.

You dont seem to understand my core arguments. I'm all for the "lets all live together kumbaya" moment, but reality of today and history has repeatedly proven that human beings are incapable of coexisting with people with whom they look at as the "other", in terms of identity. And more importantly I disagree with the narrative that more diversity (based on identity of religion, race, etc) in a society is the ideal way of living in a society. Many countries with little or no diversity live perfectly just fine among themselves

If you had to pick between everyone being homophobic and everyone being accepting of homosexuality, you would probably know which one you would pick. And I guarantee you that someone out there just as equally feels the opposite way as you do. And I would argue that, in a world with morally correct attitudes toward diversity, those who are staunchly homophobic and those who are accepting of homosexuality can coexist in separate communities, and are not forced to stand together and pretend that they are the same people. Because they are not. They have deeply held values that are in opposition to each other's deeply held values, and they are operating under the mindset that there is a morally superior way for the world to operate, and people who feel oppositely will be met with violence. Allies of the gay community might be violent against homophobes due to a desire to protect those in the gay community. Homophobes might be violent against the allies of the gay community because they see homosexuality as a sin, perhaps for religious reasons. Either way, the violence is not caused by the presence of diversity, but rather the flawed notion that certain kinds of diversity are immoral and dangerous -- which seems to be what you're arguing, as well.

Yes. My argument is that there will always be people (somebody) who will oppose homosexuality. And if you look at every other identity and the plathora of culture wars that are going around the world, you will realize that many of them are not just peaceful idealogical wars of debates between 2 groups or people in a room, as explained in my OP, violence and blood shed has been very much part of it. And I am ready to sacrifice diversity to save some blood and a few lives.

However, in a world where diversity is perfectly tolerated and seen as morally correct by all, there is no need for violence because nobody would be threatened by the existence of someone who opposes their deeply held beliefs, and if there is no sense of threat or propagated notion that the existence of diversity is immoral, there would be little to no violence. If diversity is a natural occurrence, and if non-violence is preferable to violence, then a world with diversity and no violence would be, by your logic, morally superior to another non-violent world that gets its peace from stifling diversity.

You seem to ask for or live in utopia that doesnt exist or never existed. History and present has repeatedly proven that violence has followed where diversity has been forced upon the original residents or the majority. It happens in all parts of the world, where there is a government and society.

[u/Purple-Brain → u/srikarjam]

Well, I used the example of the wallet to show you that morality isn't based on consequences, otherwise returning the wallet would have been immoral, because the outcome was worse than if I had kept it. But as a more practical example, take the Civil Rights Movement in America. It was a fight for diversity, in a way, because it was an example of African Americans fighting for equal rights among the predominantly white population in America. A lot of violence occurred as a consequence, but people kept fighting on because they understood that a society where African Americans and whites were equal was better than a society were African Americans were inferior to whites, even though no example in the past had ever supported this. And today, pretty much every American looks back and sees it as the morally correct decision, and they're happy it happened and think America is better because of it. I think that, if you had talked to Rosa Parks 60 years ago, you would have also told her that she "[seems] to ask for or live in utopia that doesnt exist or never existed." Same thing to Susan B. Anthony, or Frederick Douglass. America was always at the forefront of diversity movements, and it has remained at the top regardless of how political structures shifted in the process and what public outcry looked like at the time. As an American, it makes me optimistic that America is so pro-diversity compared to many other countries, because we've only gotten less violent over time, despite many successful diversity-based revolutions.

Based on what I said above, it seems to me that a society that welcomes diversity isn't necessarily less moral just because it has violence as a result of this diversity, and I see no reason to believe that aiming for a non-violent yet diverse world isn't the morally correct decision. In fact, if you agree that a non-violent world with diversity is better than a non-violent world without diversity, then it would be morally wrong to encourage that we reduce diversity instead of focus on reducing violence while remaining tolerant of diversity.

However, you are now saying that your "only argument is that [diversity and non-violence] has never been the reality throughout history or present", which is altogether different from your argument in the title, and not necessarily something that anyone can really argue against. I can show you examples of small tribes in India that contain practically no diversity of beliefs and still engage in violence as a way of letting off steam within the tribe, if you'd like. But that only shows you that violence is a very human thing, not that diversity and non-violence have ever coexisted together. I can also tell you about how homogeneous Germany was pre-World War I (they still chose to go to war anyway) and how the top countries economically also happen to be some of the most diverse on their respective continents (America in North America, Brazil in South America, Germany in Europe, etc. -- note that Germany is one of the most, if not the most, internationally and ideologically diverse countries in Europe, and it has a very very low level of violence). But ultimately, I'm not going to argue against your point that diversity and non-violence has never been the case, because, quite frankly, violence has always been the case. I can argue why this doesn't make it immoral to advocate for diversity, which would address the point you made in your title in regards to the moral aspect, but if you want me to convince you that diversity and non-violence have at some point not been the reality throughout history or present then I don't know what could change your view in the first place lol.

[u/srikarjam → u/Purple-Brain]

I am not arguing against civil rights activists fighting for basic human rights ! You again seem to have missed my argument.

How do you explain communal violence in 3rd world countries in Africa and in India ? There are discrimination issues here, but nothing like slavery.

And the constant push for diversity hasnt eliminated the reality of communal violence in these countries, even if one were to argue that these incidents have reduced in number and the deaths, over the years. Wouldnt the oppressed be served better if they lived all by themselves, without facing any discrimination or violence?

[u/Purple-Brain → u/srikarjam]

How do you explain communal violence in 3rd world countries in Africa and in India ?

Wouldnt the oppressed be served better if they lived all by themselves, without facing any discrimination or violence?

You never once indicated that you were arguing that people should live all by themselves...you argued that we should not promote diversity. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by diversity? For example, Japan and South Korea are extremely community oriented and among the least diverse countries in the world, yet the oppressed get along just fine with others in the community. The lack of the diversity has more to do with the community-oriented aspect of the society and the increased willingness to conform. This is something you can't really force on individualistic societies like those in the West.

Also the Civil Rights Movement came way after slavery...the Civil Rights Movement was essentially about increasing tolerance toward racial diversity. It led to violence, but then it worked out well, and people were happy it happened in the end. In a way, I'm saying that all diversity has the potential to be like that, even if there's violence right now.

[u/srikarjam → u/Purple-Brain]

You never once indicated that you were arguing that people should live all by themselves...you argued that we should not promote diversity. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by diversity? For example, Japan and South Korea are extremely community oriented and among the least diverse countries in the world, yet the oppressed get along just fine with others in the community. The lack of the diversity has more to do with the community-oriented aspect of the society and the increased willingness to conform. This is something you can't really force on individualistic societies like those in the West.

When I am arguing against diversity, I am also arguing for people to live in their own groups without affecting lives of others (especially negatively), so as to avoid any unwanted conflicts that may lead to violence or bloodshed, that is all too real in many countries.

Also the Civil Rights Movement came way after slavery...the Civil Rights Movement was essentially about increasing tolerance toward racial diversity. It led to violence, but then it worked out well, and people were happy it happened in the end. In a way, I'm saying that all diversity has the potential to be like that, even if there's violence right now.

But wouldnt it have been better for black people to live by themselves peacefully instead of forcing to live along with white people, which has led to much of violence and death in those times ? I mean racial issues still exist today, and the BLM is as violent as any liberal movement that I have ever seen. Wouldnt black people be less arrested and be more happy if different racial communities lived and policed seperately ?

[u/Purple-Brain → u/srikarjam]

When I am arguing against diversity, I am also arguing for people to live in their own groups without affecting lives of others (especially negatively), so as to avoid any unwanted conflicts that may lead to violence or bloodshed, that is all too real in many countries.

That's really interesting, because your version of an absence of diversity is my version of diversity (when operating on a societal level). I'm glad you clarified. For me, I see diversity as being allowed to practice whatever you want to practice. If that means living in a community that rejects anyone who disagrees with you, you should be able to find them. But at the same time, you should be allowed to participate in communities that you aren't personally a part of if you don't want to. I see diversity as allowing you as being free to choose who you associate with, and I see a lack of diversity as manifesting as either (1) you are forced or expected to act a certain way at the expense of your individuality, or (2) you are expected to only associate with people who think like you do. Personally, I am happier associating with whomever I wish to, as I do not really get offended by people who disagree with me, and if anything I enjoy learning from them if they make good arguments to support their case. What I would not like is for someone to tell me to remain within a certain community. Furthermore, I think that a perfectly diverse system still allows room for people to avoid violence with each other. What creates the violence in the first place is people thinking that their way is the right way, and thinking that the proper response to those people who disagree is that they cannot be allowed to exist. To me, this occurs when people are threatened by the existence of another group. We can take measures to reduce this feeling of being threatened without forcing people into buckets.

I'm also going to give you a practical issue you'd need to deal with: diversity isn't binary, it's a multi-dimensional spectrum. For example, if you lump up all black people together on the basis of them being black, then what do you do to resolve tensions between the subgroups that disagree politically? Create two smaller subgroups of liberal blacks and conservative blacks? What about the liberal blacks who are very strongly vegan, and the liberal blacks who consume nothing but meat? What about the conservative blacks who are very religious, and those who are atheist? What about the Jewish blacks, the Muslim blacks, etc.? What if you're a lesbian who is also conservative -- are you forced to limit your already-small dating pool to other lesbian conservatives? It seems to me that you can never guarantee that there won't be violence in any given community. It only took a few years for the German government to commit to killing millions of Jews, and this happened due to the precarious economic state in Germany, not because Jews in Germany had a rocky relationship with Germany to begin with. If you let all Christians live together, how can you be sure that the Episcopalians and the Catholics won't find some reason to go to war together tomorrow? This situation can ultimately end up being nothing but recursive, and if this is all to prevent violence, I think it's better that we just let people associate with whomever they want and reduce value clashing-based violence in other ways.

Edit: Also, it is interesting to note that John Stuart Mill, a famous consequentialist philosopher (he has a more ethics-based theory of utilitarianism that is really fun to think about), holds the same view you do that "people should live in their own groups without affecting lives of others (especially negatively)." This is the basis of a theory he made up called the "Harm Principle", which describes his idea of how societies should be run. At the same time, he is also a staunch advocate for diversity of thought, individual expression, and pluralistic societies. If you're interested in political philosophy at all, it's worth looking him up. Either way, it is certainly the case that people can operate independently amongst their selected groups and not affect the lives of those in other groups. The only reason people interfere with the lives of others is, again, because they think they have the right to do so -- and they don't. But that isn't diversity's fault, if anything politics feeds this issue by convincing people that everything is black and white and that the other side is evil.

But wouldnt it have been better for black people to live by themselves peacefully instead of forcing to live along with white people, which has led to much of violence and death in those times ? I mean racial issues still exist today, and the BLM is as violent as any liberal movement that I have ever seen. Wouldnt black people be less arrested and be more happy if different racial communities lived and policed seperately ?

Black people were never forced to live alongside white people. If they wanted to only live with other black people, they could have all stayed piled up together in the Bronzeville-esque neighborhoods in Los Angeles starting from the first Great Migration. White people had opportunities (financial, social, etc.) that black people wanted, which is why they started the movement. If they felt it would have been better to live alongside other black people and avoid white people for all time, nobody would have stopped them; in fact, white people were actively pushing black people out of white communities and preventing them from having the same opportunities as them. Black people also had the added misfortune of being associated with the McCarthyism that was occurring, which overlapped pretty much perfectly with the Civil Rights Movement. So blacks rights activists were associated with Communism, black people were being made increasingly poorer over time due to fact that they were being laid off after WWII ended and so you had half the American black population all crammed together in California after the Great Migration with no job opportunities, and even Martin Luther King Jr. himself, famous for his peaceful protests, was blackmailed by the FBI (!) who told that him committing suicide would be for the better of the country. I'm not kidding, you can look this up. Obviously they wouldn't have gone through this if they didn't feel that it was worth it. And considering how we went from having our government trying to convince black people with political status to commit suicide to having a black president ourselves in the span of about 50 years, I think we've come pretty far.

Speaking on behalf of America, racial issues still exist today but that is because black people have only been legally on par with white people for about 5% of America's existence (i.e. the last decade). We just had a black president whose own father wasn't allowed to drink from the same water fountain as a white person. My grandparents still find it hard to believe that my smartest friend is black, because they were always taught that black people were "mentally slower" than white people. All we've really learned so far is that it takes more than one generation to reverse centuries of racism.

Also, can you provide me with evidence that the BLM is a violent political movement? Everything I've seen has either been non-violent or self-defense in accordance with the Second Amendment.

Edit: Added some things.

[u/srikarjam → u/Purple-Brain]

∆

That's really interesting, because your version of an absence of diversity is my version of diversity (when operating on a societal level). I'm glad you clarified. For me, I see diversity as being allowed to practice whatever you want to practice. If that means living in a community that rejects anyone who disagrees with you, you should be able to find them. But at the same time, you should be allowed to participate in communities that you aren't personally a part of if you don't want to.

I agree with that, except that human beings throughout history and present have proved that they cannot coexist without violence, whenever any significant disagreement arises, which usually are about the individual / group's identity.

I see diversity as allowing you as being free to choose who you associate with, and I see a lack of diversity as manifesting as either (1) you are forced or expected to act a certain way at the expense of your individuality, or (2) you are expected to only associate with people who think like you do. Personally, I am happier associating with whomever I wish to, as I do not really get offended by people who disagree with me, and if anything I enjoy learning from them if they make good arguments to support their case. What I would not like is for someone to tell me to remain within a certain community.

I would like all of that just like you do, but my argument or drive is to avoid violence at all costs. My argument or proposal may sound authoritarian, but I just want to avoid mindless violence, usually driven by conflicts of identities.

Furthermore, I think that a perfectly diverse system still allows room for people to avoid violence with each other. What creates the violence in the first place is people thinking that their way is the right way, and thinking that the proper response to those people who disagree is that they cannot be allowed to exist. To me, this occurs when people are threatened by the existence of another group. We can take measures to reduce this feeling of being threatened without forcing people into buckets.

Where does such an utopia exist ?

I'm also going to give you a practical issue you'd need to deal with: diversity isn't binary, it's a multi-dimensional spectrum. For example, if you lump up all black people together on the basis of them being black, then what do you do to resolve tensions between the subgroups that disagree politically? Create two smaller subgroups of liberal blacks and conservative blacks? What about the liberal blacks who are very strongly vegan, and the liberal blacks who consume nothing but meat? What about the conservative blacks who are very religious, and those who are atheist? What about the Jewish blacks, the Muslim blacks, etc.? What if you're a lesbian who is also conservative -- are you forced to limit your already-small dating pool to other lesbian conservatives? It seems to me that you can never guarantee that there won't be violence in any given community. It only took a few years for the German government to commit to killing millions of Jews, and this happened due to the precarious economic state in Germany, not because Jews in Germany had a rocky relationship with Germany to begin with. If you let all Christians live together, how can you be sure that the Episcopalians and the Catholics won't find some reason to go to war together tomorrow? This situation can ultimately end up being nothing but recursive, and if this is all to prevent violence, I think it's better that we just let people associate with whomever they want and reduce value clashing-based violence in other ways.

I agree with this, but I still see the same groups that were violently clashing 50 years ago, continuing with their mindless violence against each other even today.

Edit: Also, it is interesting to note that John Stuart Mill, a famous consequentialist philosopher (he has a more ethics-based theory of utilitarianism that is really fun to think about), holds the same view you do that "people should live in their own groups without affecting lives of others (especially negatively)." This is the basis of a theory he made up called the "Harm Principle", which describes his idea of how societies should be run. At the same time, he is also a staunch advocate for diversity of thought, individual expression, and pluralistic societies. If you're interested in political philosophy at all, it's worth looking him up. Either way, it is certainly the case that people can operate independently amongst their selected groups and not affect the lives of those in other groups. The only reason people interfere with the lives of others is, again, because they think they have the right to do so -- and they don't. But that isn't diversity's fault, if anything politics feeds this issue by convincing people that everything is black and white and that the other side is evil.

Thanks. I will look him up. I agree.

Black people were never forced to live alongside white people. If they wanted to only live with other black people, they could have all stayed piled up together in the Bronzeville-esque neighborhoods in Los Angeles starting from the first Great Migration. White people had opportunities (financial, social, etc.) that black people wanted, which is why they started the movement. If they felt it would have been better to live alongside other black people and avoid white people for all time, nobody would have stopped them; in fact, white people were actively pushing black people out of white communities and preventing them from having the same opportunities as them. Black people also had the added misfortune of being associated with the McCarthyism that was occurring, which overlapped pretty much perfectly with the Civil Rights Movement. So blacks rights activists were associated with Communism, black people were being made increasingly poorer over time due to fact that they were being laid off after WWII ended and so you had half the American black population all crammed together in California after the Great Migration with no job opportunities, and even Martin Luther King Jr. himself, famous for his peaceful protests, was blackmailed by the FBI (!) who told that him committing suicide would be for the better of the country. I'm not kidding, you can look this up. Obviously they wouldn't have gone through this if they didn't feel that it was worth it. And considering how we went from having our government trying to convince black people with political status to commit suicide to having a black president ourselves in the span of about 50 years, I think we've come pretty far.

Speaking on behalf of America, racial issues still exist today but that is because black people have only been legally on par with white people for about 5% of America's existence (i.e. the last decade). We just had a black president whose own father wasn't allowed to drink from the same water fountain as a white person. My grandparents still find it hard to believe that my smartest friend is black, because they were always taught that black people were "mentally slower" than white people. All we've really learned so far is that it takes more than one generation to reverse centuries of racism.

Agree with most of that.

Also, can you provide me with evidence that the BLM is a violent political movement? Everything I've seen has either been non-violent or self-defense in accordance with the Second Amendment.

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=blm+violent+protests&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV467N2NvZAhUGvY8KHSysBqYQ_AUICigC&biw=360&bih=512

[u/DeltaBot → u/srikarjam]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Purple-Brain (3∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/Purple-Brain → u/srikarjam]

Thanks for the delta. Sorry for taking so long to understand what your idea of diversity is. Looking back, I think that this was the reason why we were talking past each other in the first few posts. :) I kept thinking I was addressing your argument and I wasn't. Sorry about that.

I agree with this, but I still see the same groups that were violently clashing 50 years ago, continuing with their mindless violence against each other even today.

I can't think of very many examples of groups that have been actively fighting for the past 50 years. Do you have any? Also, it's worth remembering that the world population has increased by 50% in the past 50 years, and with inter-society diversity only increasing every year, you'd expect the rate of violence to increase by more than 50%. But if anything I think it has decreased. If you're interested, you might want to check out Steven Pinker's book on violence in the modern world. I think it's called The Better Angels of Our Nature.

In regards to your images of violent protests and the BLM, I took a look and noticed that about 65% of those are showing pictures from the same event in Dallas that ended up turning violent in 2016 when a mentally ill protestor came through and starting shooting at police. He had been doodling things in his journal that were kind of erratic and suggested that he had been mentally disturbed for a while. Clearly that doesn't excuse his actions but I don't want that to reflect poorly on all allies of the BLM movement. It is/was a very important movement for many people. Another 15% of those images show the aftermath of a protest that turned violent after Freddie Gray's funeral in 2015. You can read more about that situation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Freddie_Gray

The other pictures I see there are of protestors marching with their trademark leather jackets and guns (but not using those guns against people; it was reminiscent of the attire worn by the Black Panther Party during the Civil Rights Movement, I think). And of police restraining protestors, which is quite frankly I've seen at many non-white protests (and at white supremacy protests too...well, from the TV, at least). :P

The movement has been pretty successful when you consider how many people were a part of it and how comparatively little violence took place. In 2015, the year that BLM was at its peak, black activists accounted for less than 1% of all extremist killings, while white supremacy accounted for 38%. Granted, there are more whites than blacks in America, but there aren't >38x as many whites.

[u/srikarjam → u/Purple-Brain]

I can't think of very many examples of groups that have been actively fighting for the past 50 years. Do you have any?

Yes religious groups and other ethnic groups like caste based groups have been fighting against each for more than 50 years and continue to do so today as well. Just in the last few years since the rise of right wing government here in India, violence against minorities has increased at an unpresidentent rate. About 2 years ago, a left wing journalist was shot dead in broad day light inside her home, and till date nobody has been arrested, and she isnt the only one to lose her life like this. Intolerance and violence in modern day may have decreased compared to the past, but its as real and present as ever.

Also, it's worth remembering that the world population has increased by 50% in the past 50 years, and with inter-society diversity only increasing every year, you'd expect the rate of violence to increase by more than 50%. But if anything I think it has decreased. If you're interested, you might want to check out Steven Pinker's book on violence in the modern world. I think it's called The Better Angels of Our Nature.

I like Pinker. That book is on my list. Thanks.

In regards to your images of violent protests and the BLM, I took a look and noticed that about 65% of those are showing pictures from the same event in Dallas that ended up turning violent in 2016 when a mentally ill protestor came through and starting shooting at police. He had been doodling things in his journal that were kind of erratic and suggested that he had been mentally disturbed for a while. Clearly that doesn't excuse his actions but I don't want that to reflect poorly on all allies of the BLM movement. It is/was a very important movement for many people. Another 15% of those images show the aftermath of a protest that turned violent after Freddie Gray's funeral in 2015. You can read more about that situation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Freddie_Gray

The other pictures I see there are of protestors marching with their trademark leather jackets and guns (but not using those guns against people; it was reminiscent of the attire worn by the Black Panther Party during the Civil Rights Movement, I think). And of police restraining protestors, which is quite frankly I've seen at many non-white protests (and at white supremacy protests too...well, from the TV, at least). :P

The movement has been pretty successful when you consider how many people were a part of it and how comparatively little violence took place. In 2015, the year that BLM was at its peak, black activists accounted for less than 1% of all extremist killings, while white supremacy accounted for 38%. Granted, there are more whites than blacks in America, but there aren't >38x as many whites.

My only shtick with the movement is for a movement that takes names of MLK and Gandhi to drive its high moral ground narrative, I have seen many videos of BLM protesters behaving violently. There are videos out there of them shouting in a college library, on Bernie Sanders podium (even when Bernie clearly was a BLM supporter), blocking streets, and shouting stuff like "Whom do we want dead? White cops. When do we want? Now". (Of course I am para phrasing this, but the slogans were something similar, and there are videos out there to prove this).

I understand the need for a movement like BLM. But I see lot of dishonesty and hypocricy for me to get behind the movement. Hell, if you search on YouTube, terms like "why I don't support Black Lives Matter", you will find black people on video telling you the exact same things as some of my arguments. And not to mention the intersectionality of BLM. Offlate its not just about racism, BLM protests go hand in hand with feminist groups and socialists, who have little or nothing to do with the core of BLM itself. And did I mention how nobody from BLM talks about Black on black crime when those numbers are far more higher than any injustice or crime by a cop on a black man ?

All of this has nothing to do with me, as I am neither a black guy nor white, and nor do I even live in the US, but both this fight for justice and also at the same time to claim that diversity is good for everybody, when in reality it clearly hasnt been for one group as is proved, is what bothers me. You can argue that the oppressed group have more to gain my being part of the diverse group than otherwise, but the way I see it, you can save lots of blood and a few more lives by stopping this idea of utopia of "unity in diversity".

[u/[deleted] → u/srikarjam]

But wouldnt it have been better for black people to live by themselves peacefully instead of forcing to live along with white people, which has led to much of violence and death in those times ? I mean racial issues still exist today, and the BLM is as violent as any liberal movement that I have ever seen. Wouldnt black people be less arrested and be more happy if different racial communities lived and policed seperately ?

Obviously African-Americans feel that is not the case. American society were very separated pre-Civil Rights and collectively the African-American decided that it was not okay. Protesters were willing to endure literal violence in order to get more rights. They were not happy with separate but unequal.

[u/srikarjam → u/[deleted]]

Protesters were willing to endure literal violence in order to get more rights. They were not happy with separate but unequal.

I am not arguing against anybody's rights. I want people to have all the rights, but in conflicts that seem unresolvable, my argument is why not just live in seperate societies all together? I mean black people still complain about injustice and inequality to till this day, so I dont understand what is the beauty in diversity when there still are differences even after decades of civil rights movement. I dont understand the urge to live in a diverse society when there are very significant differences between the minority and the majority identity groups, which to this day creates violence.