‘The Absurdity of “Diversity” and “Inclusion”‘ (2016)

See the source image

Marching off to Lib-land…

We saw an American cop show once–I think it was an episode of Law and Order–that was about the most constipated thing I’ve ever seen. They couldn’t get through a single scene without “including” every identifiable cultural or ethnic group except the Picts–a perfect illustration of the absurdity of “diversity” and “inclusion.”

The Absurdity of ‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’

Where is it written that every group must be “included” in everything we do? Where is it written that “diversity” must be pursued as an end in itself, and artificially created?

And with a group of artificially-created “diverse” characters, how come they all look like models, all with perfect teeth and hair, etc.? Why does “diversity” always end up looking and sounding like uniformity?

Uh… because it’s a liberal thing, and lib things never make any sense?

8 comments on “‘The Absurdity of “Diversity” and “Inclusion”‘ (2016)

    1. I agree. They all look the same. Which is why diversity, in liberal language, means the opposite of diverse because it’s no inclusive. In the end, it means we should all be the same, which of course, means exclusion of those who are not.

  1. Diversity is often just a code word for non-white. It’s a collectivist mindset because they don’t want any diversity when it comes to certain political or religious beliefs.

    I see a lot of influence from Marxism regarding these ideas about equality. It’s a flawed concept, because to make something equal you have to make something else unequal. And it must be forced, as you said artificially, because equality doesn’t exist in nature. Fairness, on the other hand, affords everyone with the same opportunities without penalizing someone else to do it.

    1. “Fairness, on the other hand, affords everyone with the same opportunities without penalizing someone else to do it.” beautifully stated.

  2. One looks at the pictures of (most) female republican leaders and see class, intelligence, and maybe a small humble smile. The pics of female democrats ‘leaders’ are arrogant, proud, laughing or sneering, and bright red lipstick on a pig. Diversity perversity.

    1. Good observation. Some political statements, of late, sound like they belong in a satire making fun of the backward and uncouth.

    2. Guilty. Liberals tend to believe they are their charicatures. But let me not flatter them. Something about ‘reprobate”?

Leave a Reply