Archive for August, 2006

The Superficiality of Diversity

by Jason Stotts

The proponents of diversity, common though they are, are uncommon in one aspect – each and every one of them is completely superficial. Now it’s not as though superficial people are rare; it’s unfortunately all too common trait. Yet to imagine that a whole superficial ideology strains ones credulity, at least it should.

Given that one must be rational in order to operate in reality, one should be able to safely assume that any particular ideology, in order to gain any sort of wide recognition, would have to be rational as well in order to garner adherents. Yet Diversity (the ideology) is premised upon a completely irrational premise, namely: difference is good. This is the core of the diversity delusion (to borrow a phrase from Peter Schwartz), the idea that difference is intrinsically good.

Diversity adherents usually try to mask this by using other arguments such as: blacks have been oppressed in this country so they deserve proportional representation now. Now it is one’s immediate (and indoctrinated) thought to agree that blacks should have things like affirmative action – but the fact is that they shouldn’t. This is not to be racist, but that is what the diversity advocates would have you believe. The problem is that they want the diversity to be of superficial things like skin color – it is, after all, a difference. But what is the important difference in jobs and in education? What is the diversity delusion trying to mask? The idea of merit.

Black people, qua black, are no better and no worse than any other color person; one’s skin does not determine one’s moral character. Ergo, to claim that some people should get a job because they are black is to try and institute racism as a standard of judgment – but a kind of racism that tries to include every race. Racism, as a concept, means merely that one judges another based solely on their race. It does not mean that one then acts in a negative way, it would be just as racist to then act in a positive way. Racism just means that you are judging them solely on their skin color.

To try and institute Diversity in the workplace means that workers who are productive should be balanced out with workers who are different, i.e. lazy, incompetent, stupid, or criminal. A consistent Diversity adherent would have to advocate this – after all, they are different, right?

That is the switch, to take a superficial characteristic where the difference is morally irrelevant (race, gender, etc) and to try and extrapolate a general principle that is then applied to characteristics that do have moral significance (competence, intelligence, etc).

Thus, all diversity adherents are superficial.

Automatically Generated Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Observations

by Jason Stotts

1. There seems to be an unusually high percentage of intelligent people at coffeeshops.

2. Stupid parents breed stupid children; both from poor genetics and bad parenting.

3. The empty can does rattle the most – stupid people seem to enjoy the sound of their own voice.

4. Diction is not a reliable indicator of intelligence.

5. The divorce of theorey and practice has led to the rediculous state of people being either “book smart” or “street smart”, when either is a privation of the other.

6. Skinny people seem to be more intelligent, on average, than fat people: perhaps the fat clogs their brains?

7. Purposelessness is death.

Automatically Generated Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

All Women are Sluts

by Jason Stotts

My younger brother once told me, echoing the sentiments of my disowned father, that all women are sluts. This is, surprisingly enough, a true statement – to the extent of his knowledge.

My brother Wes, like his blackguard father, is an amoral hedonist. Their goal in life is to indulge their whims, to live life in the moment, and ultimately to pursue pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Now my brother is of the kind that includes drugs and alcohol on his path; some do, some don’t. There is no fundamental difference between those that do and those that do not, it is merely a subjective preference of pleasure. Why do I say this? Because the end goal, the goal they don’t want to admit to themselves or others, is that their goal is death. Since both kinds share this goal, they are fundamentally similar.

Why do I think that they seek death? Because a human life can only be achieved by a process of rational thought and it is precisely rational thought that these people are trying to destroy. With drugs and alcohol it’s clear how they destroy rational thought – being under the influence is valued by these people precisely because of its destructive property. They revel in their imaginary universe of non-thought, they revel in the destruction of their brains and bodies, they revel at the thought of their own death.

Sex, however, seems to be different. Is one’s brain damaged by sex? No. Is one’s body damaged by sex? No. What then leads me to classify sex, the way it’s practiced by the amoral hedonists, as self-destructive? The answer lies in the nature of sex.

Let us return to Wes for example. His greatest goal in life, in his own words, is “to get laid”. If you were to ask him about his background, you would find a string of failures leading up to a zero – which is precisely what he has accomplished so far in his life: nothing. Yet he is a proud young man; proud because he has slept with more women than he can remember their names (not all of which he knew at the time). Wes is also proud about how much he can drink, and how much marijuana he can smoke in a day, and how many other drugs he’s tried.

Wes has never had a real relationship in his life; this should come as no surprise because the kind of women with whom he associates is not the kind who has the mental fortitude or maturity to be in a relationship. Wes has been in a string of bitter relationships that flare quickly and burn away just as rapidly. He bemoans this sometimes insisting that he “just can’t meet the right girl”, while at other times lauds this situation because it leaves him free to “get more ass”.

Wes has only known sex with random women and in failing relationships. Never has he experienced sex properly – nor could he, having no idea what love is or how to achieve it. This justifies Wes’ claim that all women are sluts, because all of the women that he has slept with are sluts. So to the best of his knowledge the statement is true. However, the statement is clearly false. The statement is really nothing more than an admission that the only kind of women that the speaker has ever been with has been a slut and an unspoken desire to relegate all women to the role of slut that way while he has never experienced a true woman, he is no worse than anyone else.

Incidentally, this idea of wanting, not to be good, but to be no worse than anyone else is one of the driving forces of the amoral hedonist. Implicitly knowing that life can only be achieved by thought, but also knowing that thought is the opposite of what they want, they try to stay just a little ahead of the worse among them in order to postpone their inevitable demise and to hide from themselves the fact that this, death, is their real wish.

Automatically Generated Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

A Brief Confrontation

by Jason Stotts

“You’ll learn. Oh, one of these days, you’ll learn.” She said it as if speaking across the experiential gap that divides children and adults.

“What is it that I should learn, mother?” He said it simply, inquisitively. The question was more directed to understand her motive than her position.

“You’ll learn,” her eyes narrowing; “that the world is not as cut and dry as you think. There is much in the world that doesn’t fit your neat little ideas about right and wrong. It’s not a black-and-white world out there; there are only shades of gray.”

“Your moral mists have no sympathy from me,” He said easily, her position coming into focus and her weaknesses manifesting as if they were glowing red targets beckoning a strike. “Mine is a world of light and truth.”

“I don’t like the way you’re talking to me,” she said hastily as she arose from the table where they had been sitting. “You need to learn to respect your elders. One of these days you’ll learn and your lesson will be a hard one.” It was as if she almost took glee in the thought of him failing, glee in the prospect of a maternal ‘I told you so’. But it was tinged with fear and said as if to forestall further argument during her retreat from the kitchen.

He continued to sit there for a few minutes more, contemplating what sort of life she must have had, prior to his birth, and what sort of upbringing could have driven her to such absurdity. Clearly, if there was no black and no white, there could be no gray. Yet that was precisely the kind of world she wanted; a vindication for her moral depravity and failure of thought. How could someone think like this? How could they not see the folly of their position? Worse, he thought, how could I be related to her?

The chain was familiar and worn. Although he had had many similar confrontations in the past, they never ceased to amaze him at their childishness nor did they ever seem to provide an answer to his questions.

He sighed as he arose and went back upstairs to his work. To argue with one such as her was its own folly.

Automatically Generated Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts