Archived Tucker Carlson Dares Question Dogma of Diversity; Pointing and Sputtering Ensues (unz.com)
submitted ago by 1Sorry_SOB
Posted by: 1Sorry_SOB
Posting time: 2.2 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 12/8/2018 10:00:00 AM
Views: 48
SCP: 10
20 upvotes, 10 downvotes (67% upvoted it)
Archived Tucker Carlson Dares Question Dogma of Diversity; Pointing and Sputtering Ensues (unz.com)
submitted ago by 1Sorry_SOB
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 1Iron_Curtain ago
Don't listen to the Pilgrims, listen to the Puritans. Anyways, I think Tucker Carlson brings up a good point. How much has what we call diversity moves society onwards in a progressive manner and how much can it be said to have done so. It must be something that is considered through and through. We were doing pretty well before "diversity" came along, and the problem seem pretty clear when we are contending with it. I don't know if there is an intellectual manner to come back against it, although clearly a certain kind of myth-thinking and formal thinking could serve our interests, but ultimately how far it gets us depends on how far we are to carry the naturalistic proposal for race's existence.
I think though we can identify things through language structures, signs, and symbols to some extent and work them back into our sense of truth, but it should be a matter in constant process and development towards which we work for preservation of people. This is the problem with our enemy they just force home an argument and call it "diversity."
There is nothing that is certain about this term's meaning according to their logic and according to their logic they are most likely to contradict themselves on this matter, because ultimately its far too binary in a realm of thought that should work towards, but certainly a certain kind of binary identification of thought is necessary, and in this case the notion of "diversity" is non-universalized universal(when it comes to breaking up the races) that can be de-universalized into a particular universal.
This means nothing in this case. "Diversity" can include vagrant criminal types, feminists, Communists, Muslims, multiculturalists, et cetera, because in a kind of conceptual manner it fits into the much too broadly understood notion of "diversity." If anything in this context the "diversity" crowd proves that real diversity lies in universalized form of the non-universal that is universalized in the particular(the great pantheon of thought and traditions that have guided the Western mind and all the negative aspects that come with it).
Its a pretty easy question to answer in this situation and ultimately it leads to a subjective kind of sparring, but why elevate things when everything proceeds on the anthropomorphic and materialistic level. I though these leftists thought this way. Guess not. All this considered, Yglesias is clearly just tossing out all kinds of bifurcated/this/that arguments that are meant to only create striking parallels on an another extreme. I do the same, but its a fallacy of analogy, but a fallacy that the left can wield effectively to their own advantage, because they are essentially "right" in using it, but wrong in the general perception that arises and how the form and matter of the perception is conceptualized.
Its poor and shoddy and its information base is non-groundable, as it always is in situations like this. Okay, so our nation is the land of diversity and presenting opportunities to others, but how does this correlate with reality? This kind of presumptive thinking gets us worked down and happens when you get too focused in on vague concepts that have no practical meaning. Maybe the conditions are present, but just the conditions are there does not mean people are going to harness and use them responsibly.
The fact that countries like Pakistan are against diversity proves in a sense that we at once are the better in this whole matter, but also proves that we have something wrong and that is not that we need to become tyrants about our ideas, but rather a raw kind of intuitionism and traditionalism that needs to work together to render a result where the ideas are seen as building blocks, rather then things in and of themselves, as the post-Enlightenment world has done and to work them around the benefit of our people and from this let ideas arise(which I think was the intent of the founding fathers, but it was not concretely laid out). The civilizational model will process onwards in this context. Its also good to recognize the alien other in this context, but not to get bogged down in aiding them or to feel the need to incorporate ourselves with them.