Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

[BananaStand]

Describe the various ways in which diversity is good and the various ways in which diversity is bad. Use examples. Don't just try to fob off the question with platitudes such as 'it depends'. Pussy.

Well, first you have to define the dimension across which you are measuring diversity. You want an example, ok, take something like a five factor personality model and choose one. How about 'Extroversion'. A highly extroverted person will be good at sales. A low extroverted person will make a great accountant. A company's success will be influenced positively by assuring that all useful points on the extroversion spectrum are represented within the staff.

Another example. A swiss army knife is better than a butter knife.

Diversity is bad if you are measuring it across irrelevant dimensions and enforcing the outcome, either legislatively or socially. So again, if you want a concrete example, look at Justin Trudeau's cabinet. He pledged to make it 50% men, and 50% women. Diversity for diversity's sake. The pool of qualified candidates was 75% men. Therefore, an unequal opportunity was created where a woman in that pool was 3x as likely to get a cabinet position as a man.

[Poopadoop]

Well, first you have to define the dimension across which you are measuring diversity. You want an example, ok, take something like a five factor personality model and choose one. How about 'Extroversion'. A highly extroverted person will be good at sales. A low extroverted person will make a great accountant. A company's success will be influenced positively by assuring that all useful points on the extroversion spectrum are represented within the staff.

Yes, but I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of diversity TC was talking about. In the context of American history, diversity has a much more specific meaning.

Diversity is bad if you are measuring it across irrelevant dimensions and enforcing the outcome, either legislatively or socially. So again, if you want a concrete example, look at Justin Trudeau's cabinet. He pledged to make it 50% men, and 50% women. Diversity for diversity's sake. The pool of qualified candidates was 75% men. Therefore, an unequal opportunity was created where a woman in that pool was 3x as likely to get a cabinet position as a man.

I agree that is retarded. Enforced diversity is just as bad as enforced non-diversity, in general.

[BananaStand]

I agree that is retarded. Enforced diversity is just as bad as enforced non-diversity, in general.

Well in that case, the diversity wasn't necessarily enforced. It was just JT virtue-signaling.

But now tie it back to the original question..."Is JT's sufficiently diverse cabinet STRONGER than a cabinet chosen on merit alone?"

[Poopadoop]

But now tie it back to the original question..."Is JT's sufficiently diverse cabinet STRONGER than a cabinet chosen on merit alone?"

Already answered. Do you want to ask it a third time?

Here's another question: If JT refused to have anyone in his cabinet who wasn't a rich white male who only spoke English, would that be a STRONGER or WEAKER cabinet than one that was open to diversity among its members?

[BananaStand]

Here's another question: If JT refused to have anyone in his cabinet who wasn't a rich white male who only spoke English, would that be a STRONGER or WEAKER cabinet than one that was open to diversity among its members?

Anyone who rejects superior talent on the basis of race or gender is simply stupid and is obviously going to make the cabinet weaker.

Accepting mediocre talent to avoid the appearance of that is also stupid, and will also make the cabinet weaker.

[Poopadoop]

Right, so accepting diversity where it happens while neither enforcing it through things like quota systems, nor discouraging it through identity-based limits on numbers, is the ideal for JT.

[BananaStand]

Right, so accepting diversity where it happens while neither enforcing it through things like quota systems, nor discouraging it through identity-based limits on numbers, is the ideal for JT.

It sounds like you're saying that JT should not be sensitive to the fact that women might be disappointed if they aren't equally represented on the cabinet. How can you ignore their dignity like that??

FASCIST SEXIST PIG

[BananaStand]

Right, so accepting diversity where it happens while neither enforcing it through things like quota systems, nor discouraging it through identity-based limits on numbers, is the ideal for JT.

I think I see where you're going with this, and you should just stop. JT wouldn't want Russian citizens on his cabinet. He wouldn't want Nepalese mountain-dwelling monks on his cabinet. It would be perfectly reasonable to insist that all of his cabinet members speak english. It would be reasonable to insist they are all canadian citizens. And it would be reasonable for him to ensure that all members of the cabinet are committed to improving quality of life in Canada.

Just like it's perfectly reasonable for America to say "if you don't speak the language, if you're not going to participate legally in the economy, if you're going to send all the money you make back to Mexico, if you're not going to assimilate, if you're going to cost more than you produce.....then stay the fuck out!

If all of the people affected negatively by that happen be disproportionally represented by a particular race or culture then so be it. Ignoring those problems in order to admit a 'diverse' group of races and cultures is a catastrophe.