I think that's an unfair characterisation. I read it as the commenter using racism purely as an example where reduced diversity of opinion towards no racism is a good thing, not saying that all opponents of diversity are racist.
I interpreted it as them picking an example that most people would agree is bad. Taking something to its logical extremes is a natural part of exploring its consequences.
Fewer people thinking that the Earth is flat would also be a reduction in viewpoint diversity.
OP has tried to make one point about the poor logic of the headline & you shut them down & refused to deal with the argument because you inferred the posit that racism is bad as them calling people who disagree with them racist. That's not you engaging with diverse viewpoints.
> OP has tried to make one point about the poor logic of the headline & you shut them down & refused to deal with the argument because you inferred the posit that racism is bad as them calling people who disagree with them racist. That's not you engaging with diverse viewpoints.
First of all, you are confusing me with Neil44. I did not say "You’ve gone straight to the implication that everyone who doesn’t want to hear politics from the noisy few is racist". Neil44 said that. Not me. At no point did I infer that OP would be calling people who disagree with them as racist.
Secondly, how am I "not engaging with diverse viewpoints"? I'm literally on the internet right now engaging with people who express viewpoints that I disagree with. Like, what is your expectation of what "engaging with diverse viewpoints" is supposed to look like? If I'm fawning over an internet comment like "yes, well said, comrade, I agree 100%", then I'm not engaging with diverse viewpoints, am I? If everybody in the conversation agrees with each other, where is the diversity in their views? It's only when people _disagree_ with each other, and still engage one another, that you might say people are "engaging with diverse viewpoints".
Thirdly, I didn't even "shut down" their arguments. I simply acknowledged that this person thinks negatively of viewpoint diversity, and that they provided an example of a viewpoint where diversity is indeed bad (racism). That's me acknowledging their argument (in a snarky way, but still).
I don't agree. I think they were pointing out that the issue is more complex than "viewpoint diversity is good per se". Although these discussions are almost invariably terrible in comment sections because they lack the nuance of spoken discussion, so either of us could be right. I just chose to assume good faith and the strongest plausible interpretation of what they said.
I'd say that's a rather charitable interpretation. "Not necessarily good"? Come on, this is the comment we are talking about:
> I don't trust this article. The phrase "Losing viewpoint diversity" is of course crafted to make it sound like a chilling trend. Pretty clear what they want you to think about it. But if you drill into what that's referring to, whether you think it's a bad thing is entirely up to what you think of how the viewpoints are changing. "Fewer racists than ever" also maps to "less viewpoint diversity" but is totally a good thing.
I’ll also note that anytime I see the phrase “come on” in debate I perceived that the person that said it has lost, knows they lost (usually subconsciously) and are literally begging for leeway.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> I’ll also note that anytime I see the phrase “come on” in debate I perceived that the person that said it has lost, knows they lost (usually subconsciously) and are literally begging for leeway
Oh, the irony. After you scold me on the need to assume "the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says", you immediately proceed to interpret my comment as "literally begging for leeway". I guess my comment was not deserving of "strongest plausible interpretation", or even interpreting it at face value? No, you'll go as far as psychoanalyzing my subconscious where I "know I lost". Wow.
um, I was the commenter, and I clearly just picked racism as an example of the sort of viewpoint that you would be glad to see less of, to show that viewpoint diversity is not necessarily good depending on the viewpoint. You are really misreading it to make some weird point that no one is buying.
> um, I was the commenter, and I clearly just picked racism as an example of the sort of viewpoint that you would be glad to see less of to show that viewpoint diversity is not necessarily good depending on the viewpoint. You are really misreading it to make some weird point that no one is buying.
Ok. Let's see if I understood your point correctly this time: you are saying that sometimes viewpoint diversity is good, and sometimes viewpoint diversity is bad. For example, viewpoint diversity is bad in the subject of racism, but viewpoint diversity might be good in some other subject. Overall, you expressed a sentiment that you are not worried about "decreasing viewpoint diversity". Would you agree with this characterization?
I apologise if I read more into your initial post than was there. However I think the whole discussion thread 100% proves the point that politics should be kept out of the workplace.
